Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

BRUCE RICH,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-157-MP-GRJ

MICHAEL D. CREWS, Secretary, 

Florida Department of Corrections, et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 97, Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary

Dismissal. Defendant Michael D. Crews does not object to the dismissal of this cause

without prejudice. (Doc. 98.) For the reasons discussed below, it is recommended that

the motion for voluntary dismissal be granted and this case be dismissed without

prejudice.

BACKGROUND

This case was filed in September 2010 by Plaintiff Bruce Rich, a Jewish inmate

currently housed at Union C.I., seeking a kosher diet. This Court previously granted

Defendants’ motion for summary judgement (Doc. 57), but the Eleventh Circuit reversed

and remanded the case, based largely on the developments in another case–United

States v. Secretary, Case No. 1:12-cv-22958 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2012). In that case,

the Department of Justice filed suit against the Florida Department of Corrections,

asserting the same legal claim as the Plaintiff in the instant case. The United States

recently amended its complaint to include Plaintiff as a specific example of how the
Page 2 of 3

FDOC’s policies substantially burden the religious exercise of Jewish prisoners. (United

States v. Secretary, Doc. 109 (Nov. 25, 2013).) More importantly, in United States v.

Secretary, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction on December

6, 2013. The Southern District held that several provisions of the DOC’s new kosher

diet (enacted well after Plaintiff initiated this suit) substantially burdened the religious

exercise of Jewish inmates. The court also held that the provisions fail under the

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. 

FDOC has been ordered to submit a plan for a statewide kosher diet by February 28,

2014, and to implement the statewide kosher diet no later than July 1, 2014. (Id. at

Doc. 106.) This new kosher diet would apply to Plaintiff.

In the instant case, a Case Management and Scheduling Order was issued

November 7, 2013, setting the discovery deadline for March 31, 2014 and the

dispositive motion deadline for June 30, 2014. (Doc. 93.) Plaintiff advises the Court

that the parties have not engaged in any discovery other than exchanging initial

disclosures. (Doc. 97.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has moved for voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), which

permits voluntary dismissal in cases at this procedural posture with leave of court, “on

terms that the court considers proper.” “The district court enjoys broad discretion in

determining whether to allow a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2).” Potenberg v.

Boston Scientific Corp., 252 F.3d 1253, 1255 (11 Cir. 2001) (citing McCants v. Ford th

Motor Co., Inc., 781 F. 2d 855, 857 (11 Cir. 1986)). Voluntary dismissal will generally th

“be granted unless the defendant will suffer clear legal prejudice, other than the mere

Case No: 1:10-cv-157-MP -GRJ
Page 3 of 3

prospect of a subsequent lawsuit, as a result.” McCants, 781 F. 2d at 856-57.

Here, Defendants have not alleged any prejudice and do not oppose Plaintiff’s

motion. (Doc. 98.) The Court finds that Defendants will not be prejudiced by the

voluntary dismissal where the parties have not engaged in additional pre-trial discovery

and there is no pending motion for summary judgment. Furthermore, because Plaintiff

is named in the amended complaint in United States v. Secretary, and he asserts that

his “interests are fully protected by the United States’ suit,” any further litigation in the

instant case would be inefficient and a waste of scarce judicial resources. 

RECOMMENDATION

 For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case

should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IN CHAMBERS this 9 day of January 2014. th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s objections within 14 days after being

served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of review of

proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No: 1:10-cv-157-MP -GRJ