Harris v. Hill

• Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
• Decided: August 1, 2019
• Docket: 6:19-cv-00033
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION LABARRION HARRIS, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:19-cv-33 Vv. CHAPLAIN BERNARD HILL; and GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants. ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Notice and Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss.' (Doc. 7.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion and DISMISSES Plaintiffs Complaint without prejudice. The Court REJECTS as moot the Magistrate Judge’s April 30, 2019 Report and Recommendation, (doc. 3), and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter an appropriate judgment of dismissal and to CLOSE this case. SO ORDERED, this Ist day of August, 2019.

R. STAN BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

' Although Plaintiff provided no legal basis for his Motion, the Court construes Plaintiff’ s Motion as being made pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “Federal courts sometimes will ignore the legal label that a pro se litigant attaches to a motion and recharacterize the motion in order to place it within a different legal category.” Retic v. United States, 215 F. App’x 962, 964 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Castro _v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381 (2003)). Federal courts “may do so in order to avoid an unnecessary dismissal, to avoid inappropriately stringent application of formal labeling requirements, or to create a better correspondence between the substance of a pro se motion’s claim and its underlying legal basis.” Id. (quoting Castro, 540 U.S. at 381-82).