Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-01956/USCOURTS-ca4-09-01956-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tatyana A. Babakaeva
Appellant
Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly, PC
Appellee
Nikolai I. Sinkine

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1956

JONES, BLECHMAN, WOLTZ & KELLY, PC,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TATYANA A. BABAKAEVA,

Defendant – Appellant,

and

NIKOLAI I. SINKINE,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson,

District Judge. (4:08-cv-00123-RAJ-JEB)

Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 21, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tatyana A. Babakaeva, Appellant Pro Se. Raymond Bernard Bacon, 

QUADROS & ASSOCIATES, PC, Newport News, Virginia; Lawrence Hoyt 

Glanzer, ROUSSOS LASSITER GLANZER & MARCUS, PLC, Norfolk, 

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-1956 Doc: 16 Filed: 04/21/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Tatyana A. Babakaeva seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order, entered after a hearing, denying her motion to 

strike Plaintiff’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of 

voluntary dismissal. In its order, the district court stated 

that “[t]he dismissal of the case remains effective as of the 

date of the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal.” We dismiss the 

appeal. 

Babakaeva did not file an answer or a motion for 

summary judgment prior to the filing of the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) 

notice. Therefore, the voluntary dismissal became effective 

upon filing of the notice with the clerk of the district court. 

At that point, the action terminated, and the district court was 

divested of jurisdiction. See In re Matthews, 395 F.3d 477, 480 

(4th Cir. 2005); Marex Titanic, Inc. v. The Wrecked & Abandoned 

Vessel, 2 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the 

district court was without authority to conduct the hearing or 

to enter the order Babakaeva seeks to appeal, and that order is 

void. See Safeguard Business Sys., Inc. v. Hoeffel, 907 F.2d 

861 (8th Cir. 1990). The order being void, the voluntary 

dismissal remains effective as of the date the notice of 

dismissal was filed in the district court. 

Appeal: 09-1956 Doc: 16 Filed: 04/21/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

We accordingly deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately addressed in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-1956 Doc: 16 Filed: 04/21/2010 Pg: 3 of 3