Laffoon v. Bridges

W.D. Oklahoma

Laffoon v. Bridges

DecidedAugust 26, 2022

Docket5:22-cv-00446

StatusUnknown

This text of Laffoon v. Bridges (Laffoon v. Bridges) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Laffoon v. Bridges, (W.D. Okla. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

WILLIAM FRANKLIN LAFFOON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-22-446-D ) CARRIE BRIDGES, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER OF DISMISSAL This matter comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). Judge Mitchell recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Civil Action [Doc. No. 15] be construed as a notice of voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). The case file shows no timely objection or request for an extension of time, even though Plaintiff was expressly informed of his right to object, the procedure for doing so, and the firm waiver rule. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has waived further review of the issues addressed in the Report. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991); see also United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). Further, for the reasons stated by Judge Mitchell, the Court finds that this action should be dismissed. At this early stage of the case, Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss his action by simply filing a notice of dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). When a plaintiff files a Rule 41(a)(1) notice of dismissal, the filing “is self-executing,” De Leon v. Marcos, 659 F.3d 1276, 1283 (10th Cir. 2011), and “no action is required on the part of the court.” See Janssen v. Harris, 321 F.3d 998, 1000 (10th Cir. 2003); see also Netwig v. Ga. Pac. Corp., 375 F.3d 1009, 1010 (10th Cir. 2004). Liberally construing Plaintiff's Motion as a notice of voluntary dismissal, the Court finds that Plaintiff should be allowed to dismiss his § 1983 action and a dismissal without prejudice should be ordered. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 16] is ADOPTED and Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Civil Action [Doc. No. 15] is GRANTED. Plaintiffs action is voluntarily DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling. Because no action of the Court is needed to accomplish the dismissal, the entry of a separate judgment is not needed. IT IS SO ORDERED this 26" day of August, 2022.

\ : ~ Ny TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief 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 OKLAHOMA

WILLIAM FRANKLIN LAFFOON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-22-446-D ) CARRIE BRIDGES, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER OF DISMISSAL This matter comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). Judge Mitchell recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Civil Action [Doc. No. 15] be construed as a notice of voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). The case file shows no timely objection or request for an extension of time, even though Plaintiff was expressly informed of his right to object, the procedure for doing so, and the firm waiver rule. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has waived further review of the issues addressed in the Report. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991); see also United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). Further, for the reasons stated by Judge Mitchell, the Court finds that this action should be dismissed. At this early stage of the case, Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss his action by simply filing a notice of dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). When a plaintiff files a Rule 41(a)(1) notice of dismissal, the filing “is self-executing,” De Leon v. Marcos, 659 F.3d 1276, 1283 (10th Cir. 2011), and “no action is required on the part of the court.” See Janssen v. Harris, 321 F.3d 998, 1000 (10th Cir. 2003); see also Netwig v. Ga. Pac. Corp., 375 F.3d 1009, 1010 (10th Cir. 2004). Liberally construing Plaintiff's Motion as a notice of voluntary dismissal, the Court finds that Plaintiff should be allowed to dismiss his § 1983 action and a dismissal without prejudice should be ordered. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 16] is ADOPTED and Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Civil Action [Doc. No. 15] is GRANTED. Plaintiffs action is voluntarily DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling. Because no action of the Court is needed to accomplish the dismissal, the entry of a separate judgment is not needed. IT IS SO ORDERED this 26" day of August, 2022.

\ : ~ Ny TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Laffoon v. Bridges, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laffoon-v-bridges-okwd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack