Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02032/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02032-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (2009) provides: “(a) Voluntary Dismissal. [¶] (1) By the Plaintiff. [¶]

(A) Without a Court Order. Subject to Rules 23(e), 23.1(c), 23.2, and 66 and any applicable federal

statute, the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: [¶] (i) a notice of dismissal

before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment . . . .”

- 1 - 08cv2032

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

M. JASON MAJORS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08-CV-2032-IEG (POR)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Doc. No. 35.]

vs.

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

ADMINISTRATION, DELTA AIR LINES,

INC., and SAN DIEGO REGIONAL

AIRPORT AUTHORITY,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss his first amended complaint. (Doc.

No. 35.) Plaintiff specifically requests that the Court dismiss his complaint “against Defendant San

Diego County Regional Airport Authority and Delta Air Lines, Inc.” and asks “that this matter be

closed.” (Motion at 1.) Plaintiff’s motion makes no mention of whether he wishes to dismiss his

claim against the Transportation Security Administration. However, because Plaintiff has requested

the case be closed, and because no defendant has filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment,

the Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a notice of dismissal of his claim against all three defendants

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).1

Case 3:08-cv-02032-IEG-POR Document 37 Filed 04/29/09 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 08cv2032

If Plaintiff believes the Court has reached this conclusion in error, he shall file an amended

notice of dismissal on or before May 11, 2009 clearly indicating whether he intends to pursue his

case against the Transportation Security Administration. If Plaintiff does not file an amended

dismissal notice, the Clerk shall terminate this case as to all three defendants, pursuant to Plaintiff’s

original dismissal notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 29, 2009

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:08-cv-02032-IEG-POR Document 37 Filed 04/29/09 Page 2 of 2