UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MARIO CORDOVA, 

 

Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 14-14470 

 Honorable Linda V. Parker 

v. 

 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant. 

________________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Plaintiff filed this action on November 21, 2014, challenging Defendant’s 

final decision denying Plaintiff’s application for benefits under the Social Security 

Act. On February 8, 2016, the Court received a communication from Plaintiff, 

signed and dated February 4, 2016, stating “I don’t wish to pursue the case.” (ECF 

No. 20.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s communication as a request to voluntarily 

dismiss his lawsuit pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). 

Rule 41(a)(2) requires a plaintiff to seek an order of the court or stipulation 

of the opposing party to voluntarily dismiss an action where, as is the case here, the 

opposing party has filed an answer or motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 41(a)(2). The court may grant the request for voluntary dismissal “on terms that 

the court considers proper.” Id. The decision whether to dismiss a complaint 

under Rule 41(a)(2) lies within the sound discretion of the court. Grover by 

4:14-cv-14470-LVP-RSW Doc # 21 Filed 02/10/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 566
2 

Grover v. Eli Lilly & Co., 33 F.3d 716, 718 (6th Cir. 1994) (citing Banque de 

Depots v. Nat’l Bank of Detroit, 491 F.2d 753, 757 (6th Cir. 1974)). In the context 

of Rule 41(a)(2), an “abuse of discretion is found only where the defendant would 

suffer ‘plain legal prejudice’ as a result of a dismissal without prejudice.” 

Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal-MCA Music Publ’g, Inc., 583 F.3d 948, 953 

(6th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). When deciding whether the defendant will 

suffer “plain legal prejudice,” the Sixth Circuit has instructed courts to consider 

such factors as “the defendant’s effort and expense of preparation for trial, 

excessive delay and lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiff in prosecuting the 

action, insufficient explanation for the need to take a dismissal, and whether a 

motion for summary judgment has been filed by the defendant.” Grover, 33 F.3d 

at 718 (citation omitted). 

Under the circumstances of this case, the Court concludes that it should 

grant Plaintiff’s request to dismiss this action. Defendant has not filed a summary 

judgment motion and this is not the type of action requiring trial preparation. 

There has been no delay or lack of diligence on the part of Plaintiff in prosecuting 

the action. Plaintiff’s desire to no longer challenge Defendant’s administrative 

decision is not an insufficient explanation for seeking a dismissal. 

Accordingly, 

4:14-cv-14470-LVP-RSW Doc # 21 Filed 02/10/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 567
3 

IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s request to voluntarily dismiss this lawsuit 

is GRANTED and his Complaint is DISMISSED. 

 s/ Linda V. Parker 

 LINDA V. PARKER 

 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: February 10, 2016 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of 

record and/or pro se parties on this date, February 10, 2016, by electronic and/or 

U.S. First Class mail. 

 s/ Richard Loury 

 Case Manager 

4:14-cv-14470-LVP-RSW Doc # 21 Filed 02/10/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 568