Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_11-cv-01002/USCOURTS-almd-1_11-cv-01002-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMIE EATMON, #140 565, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-1002-TMH 

) [WO]

WARDEN SHARON HOLLAND, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On May 22, 2012 Plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss his complaint. See

Rule 41(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion to

dismiss, the court concludes that the motion is due to be granted. Furthermore, the court

concludes that this case should be dismissed without prejudice. See Rule 41(a)(2), Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), F.R.Civ.P., at the insistence

of Plaintiff is committed to the sound discretion of this court, and absent some plain legal

prejudice to Defendants, denial of the dismissal constitutes an abuse of this court’s

discretion. McCants v. Ford Motor Company, Inc., 781 F.2d 855 (11 Cir. 1986). Simple th

litigation costs, inconvenience to Defendants, and the prospect of a second or subsequent

lawsuit do not constitute clear legal prejudice. Id. See also Durham v. Florida East Coast

Railway Company, 385 F.2d 366 (5 Cir. 1967). th

The court has carefully reviewed the file in this case and determined that even if

Case 1:11-cv-01002-TMH-CSC Document 49 Filed 06/15/12 Page 1 of 3
Defendants were given an opportunity to file a response to Plaintiff's motion to dismiss, they

would not be able to demonstrate the existence of clear legal prejudice. Consequently, the

court concludes that this case should be dismissed without prejudice on the motion of

Plaintiff.

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

1. Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 48) be GRANTED.

2. This case be DISMISSED without prejudice. 

3. No costs be taxed herein. 

It is further 

ORDERED that the parties may file any objections to the Recommendation on or

before June 29, 2012. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or

general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that

this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the

District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the

District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d th

-2-

Case 1:11-cv-01002-TMH-CSC Document 49 Filed 06/15/12 Page 2 of 3
33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en th th

banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed

down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Done this 15 day of June, 2012. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-

Case 1:11-cv-01002-TMH-CSC Document 49 Filed 06/15/12 Page 3 of 3