HORAN v. FUQUA

W.D. Tennessee

HORAN v. FUQUA

DecidedSeptember 29, 2022

Docket1:22-cv-01121

StatusUnknown

This text of HORAN v. FUQUA (HORAN v. FUQUA) 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

HORAN v. FUQUA, (W.D. Tenn. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE EASTERN DIVISION ______________________________________________________________________________ ) ) MYRA CHARLENE HORAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-01121-JDB-jay ) WAYNE FUQUA, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) )

ORDER ACKNOWLEDGING VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND DIRECTING CLERK TO TERMINATE MOTIONS AND CLOSE CASE ______________________________________________________________________________

Before the Court is the September 16, 2022, notice of voluntary dismissal by Plaintiff, Myra Charlene Horan. (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 7.) Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis in this action on June 7, 2022. (D.E. 1.) Pursuant to Administrative Order 2013-05, management of all pretrial matters was assigned to Magistrate Judge Jon A. York. On September 13, 2022, Judge York entered a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(2)(B) and recommended that this case be dismissed and the application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. (D.E. 6.) Per 28 U.S.C. §636 (b)(1), Horan had fourteen days from service of the Report and Recommendation to file any objections. Plaintiff has failed to file timely objections and instead has filed this notice of voluntary dismissal. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), if the defendant has not filed an answer or motion for summary judgment in response to the complaint, the plaintiff may dismiss the complaint, without prejudice and without seeking a Court order, by filing a notice of dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). Indeed, “a notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is self-effectuating . . . .” Wellfount, Co. v. Hennis Care Ctr. Of Bolivar, Inc., 951 F.3d 769, 772 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing D.C. Elecs., Inc. v. Nartron Corp., 511 F.2d 294, 298 (6th Cir. 1975). In the present case, Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff. Thus, the notice of voluntary dismissal is valid and self-

effectuating. The Court therefore concludes that the complaint has been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B) (“Unless the notice . . . states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice.”). The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate the motion at D.E. 2 and the Report and Recommendation at D.E. 6 and close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of September 2022.

s/ J. DANIEL BREEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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 EASTERN DIVISION ______________________________________________________________________________ ) ) MYRA CHARLENE HORAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-01121-JDB-jay ) WAYNE FUQUA, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) )

ORDER ACKNOWLEDGING VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND DIRECTING CLERK TO TERMINATE MOTIONS AND CLOSE CASE ______________________________________________________________________________

Before the Court is the September 16, 2022, notice of voluntary dismissal by Plaintiff, Myra Charlene Horan. (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 7.) Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis in this action on June 7, 2022. (D.E. 1.) Pursuant to Administrative Order 2013-05, management of all pretrial matters was assigned to Magistrate Judge Jon A. York. On September 13, 2022, Judge York entered a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(2)(B) and recommended that this case be dismissed and the application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. (D.E. 6.) Per 28 U.S.C. §636 (b)(1), Horan had fourteen days from service of the Report and Recommendation to file any objections. Plaintiff has failed to file timely objections and instead has filed this notice of voluntary dismissal. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), if the defendant has not filed an answer or motion for summary judgment in response to the complaint, the plaintiff may dismiss the complaint, without prejudice and without seeking a Court order, by filing a notice of dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). Indeed, “a notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is self-effectuating . . . .” Wellfount, Co. v. Hennis Care Ctr. Of Bolivar, Inc., 951 F.3d 769, 772 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing D.C. Elecs., Inc. v. Nartron Corp., 511 F.2d 294, 298 (6th Cir. 1975). In the present case, Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff. Thus, the notice of voluntary dismissal is valid and self-

effectuating. The Court therefore concludes that the complaint has been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B) (“Unless the notice . . . states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice.”). The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate the motion at D.E. 2 and the Report and Recommendation at D.E. 6 and close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of September 2022.

s/ J. DANIEL BREEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

HORAN v. FUQUA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horan-v-fuqua-tnwd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack