Knasel v. Ray

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION KEVIN KNASEL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 6:21-03093-CV-RK ) FLYNT RAY, et al, ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER Pursuant to Rule 60(a), which allows “[c]orrections Based on Clerical Mistakes; Oversights and Omissions[,]” the Court, on its own and without notice, hereby “correct[s] . . . a mistake arising from oversight[.]” The Court’s Order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissing this case with prejudice (Doc. 50) is hereby corrected as to a mistake arising from oversight. The disposition of the case was mistakenly ordered “with prejudice,” whereas, “claims dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) are ‘necessarily dismissed without prejudice.’” Asher v. Ninneman, No. 19-CV-3002 (WMW/KMM), 2020 WL 6083554, at *1 (D. Minn. Oct. 15, 2020) (citing Hussein v. Barr, No. 19-cv-292 (JRT/HB), 2019 WL 5150039, at *3 (D. Minn. July 31, 2019) and Hart v. United States, 630 F.3d 1085, 1091 (8th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but modifying the dismissal to be without prejudice)). Accordingly, the Court corrects the disposition of the Order (Doc. 50 at 4) to order this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Roseann A. Ketchmark ROSEANN A. KETCHMARK, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DATED: November 9, 2021