Effort Alexander v. C & A Construction, LLC

W.D. Tennessee

Effort Alexander v. C & A Construction, LLC

DecidedNovember 18, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-02753

StatusUnknown

This text of Effort Alexander v. C & A Construction, LLC (Effort Alexander v. C & A Construction, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Effort Alexander v. C & A Construction, LLC, (W.D. Tenn. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

EFFORT ALEXANDER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 25-cv-02753-MSN-tmp ) C & A CONSTRUCTION, LLC, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING REQUEST FOR REFUND OF FILING FEE

Before the court is pro se plaintiff Effort Alexander’s “Motion to End this Complaint and to Grant Plaintiff Refund of Court Complaint Filing Fees,” filed on October 22, 2025. (ECF No. 11.) The court construes this as a notice of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). In the “motion,” plaintiff also requests for a refund of the filing fee, citing medical expenses and financial hardship. (Id.) Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), “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[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). Accordingly, Alexander’s “motion to dismiss” is GRANTED and this case will be dismissed without prejudice. However, regarding the refund request for the filing fee paid upon initiating this action, it is well settled that the filing fee is due upon commencement of a civil action and is nonrefundable, even where the case is later dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); see, e.g., In re Alea, 286 F.3d 378, 381 (6th Cir. 2002) (“[S]ubsequent dismissal of the action, even if voluntary, does

not negate [the] obligation [to pay]”); Blair v. Thompson, No. 5:16-CV-P35-TBR, 2017 WL 525496, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 7, 2017) (“Plaintiff’s limited resources and the dismissal of [an] action do not relieve Plaintiff of his responsibility to pay the requisite filing fee”). Payment of the filing fee entitles a litigant to have the case opened on the docket, but not to any further relief, so the court will not provide a reimbursement. Thus, Alexander’s request for a refund of the filing fee is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Tu M. Pham TU M. PHAM Chief United States Magistrate Judge

November 18, 2025 Date

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

EFFORT ALEXANDER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 25-cv-02753-MSN-tmp ) C & A CONSTRUCTION, LLC, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING REQUEST FOR REFUND OF FILING FEE

Before the court is pro se plaintiff Effort Alexander’s “Motion to End this Complaint and to Grant Plaintiff Refund of Court Complaint Filing Fees,” filed on October 22, 2025. (ECF No. 11.) The court construes this as a notice of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). In the “motion,” plaintiff also requests for a refund of the filing fee, citing medical expenses and financial hardship. (Id.) Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), “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[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). Accordingly, Alexander’s “motion to dismiss” is GRANTED and this case will be dismissed without prejudice. However, regarding the refund request for the filing fee paid upon initiating this action, it is well settled that the filing fee is due upon commencement of a civil action and is nonrefundable, even where the case is later dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); see, e.g., In re Alea, 286 F.3d 378, 381 (6th Cir. 2002) (“[S]ubsequent dismissal of the action, even if voluntary, does

not negate [the] obligation [to pay]”); Blair v. Thompson, No. 5:16-CV-P35-TBR, 2017 WL 525496, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 7, 2017) (“Plaintiff’s limited resources and the dismissal of [an] action do not relieve Plaintiff of his responsibility to pay the requisite filing fee”). Payment of the filing fee entitles a litigant to have the case opened on the docket, but not to any further relief, so the court will not provide a reimbursement. Thus, Alexander’s request for a refund of the filing fee is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Tu M. Pham TU M. PHAM Chief United States Magistrate Judge

November 18, 2025 Date

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Effort Alexander v. C & A Construction, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/effort-alexander-v-c-a-construction-llc-tnwd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack