Leresa Harris v. United States of America, et al.

M.D. Georgia

Leresa Harris v. United States of America, et al.

DecidedJune 1, 2026

Docket1:25-cv-00122

StatusUnknown

This text of Leresa Harris v. United States of America, et al. (Leresa Harris v. United States of America, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Leresa Harris v. United States of America, et al., (M.D. Ga. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ALBANY DIVISION

LERESA HARRIS, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CASE NO.: 1:25-CV-122 (WLS) : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., : : Defendants. : : ORDER Before the Court is a Stipulation of Dismissal (Doc. 15), filed by the Parties on May 28, 2026, pursuant to the Court’s previous Order (Doc. 14). Therein, the Parties stipulate to the dismissal, without prejudice, of Defendant Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc. under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Previously, the Court held a discovery conference in the above-captioned case wherein the Court addressed an issue raised by the Parties regarding the dismissal of Defendant Phoebe Putney as a party to this action. At the conference, the Parties explained that Defendant Phoebe Putney was not intended to be sued by Plaintiff and was not effectively served. After receiving notice of the lawsuit, Defendant Phoebe Putney, out of an abundance of caution, filed a special appearance answer on September 30, 2025. (See Doc. 5). At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court ordered the Parties to confer and file the appropriate documents to effectuate the dismissal of Defendant Phoebe Putney within thirty days. (See Doc. 14). The Parties timely filed the instant Stipulation. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing “a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” While the rule discusses the dismissal of actions generally, the Eleventh Circuit has instructed that Rule 41(a) “allows a district court to dismiss all claims against a particular defendant.” Rosell v. VMSB, LLC, 67 F.4th 1141, 1144 n.2 (11th Cir. 2023) (citing first Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092, 1106 (11th Cir. 2004); and then In re Esteva, 60 F.4th 664, 677 (11th Cir. 2023)). The Court finds that the Parties’ Stipulation complies with Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). As such, and for the purpose of completing the Record, the Court acknowledges and ACCEPTS the Parties’ Stipulation (Doc. 15). Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc. are DISMISSED, without prejudice. Plaintiff’s claims against this defendant having now been resolved, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc. as a party to this action. SO ORDERED, this 1st day of June 2026. /s/ W. Louis Sands W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ALBANY DIVISION

LERESA HARRIS, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CASE NO.: 1:25-CV-122 (WLS) : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., : : Defendants. : : ORDER Before the Court is a Stipulation of Dismissal (Doc. 15), filed by the Parties on May 28, 2026, pursuant to the Court’s previous Order (Doc. 14). Therein, the Parties stipulate to the dismissal, without prejudice, of Defendant Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc. under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Previously, the Court held a discovery conference in the above-captioned case wherein the Court addressed an issue raised by the Parties regarding the dismissal of Defendant Phoebe Putney as a party to this action. At the conference, the Parties explained that Defendant Phoebe Putney was not intended to be sued by Plaintiff and was not effectively served. After receiving notice of the lawsuit, Defendant Phoebe Putney, out of an abundance of caution, filed a special appearance answer on September 30, 2025. (See Doc. 5). At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court ordered the Parties to confer and file the appropriate documents to effectuate the dismissal of Defendant Phoebe Putney within thirty days. (See Doc. 14). The Parties timely filed the instant Stipulation. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing “a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” While the rule discusses the dismissal of actions generally, the Eleventh Circuit has instructed that Rule 41(a) “allows a district court to dismiss all claims against a particular defendant.” Rosell v. VMSB, LLC, 67 F.4th 1141, 1144 n.2 (11th Cir. 2023) (citing first Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092, 1106 (11th Cir. 2004); and then In re Esteva, 60 F.4th 664, 677 (11th Cir. 2023)). The Court finds that the Parties’ Stipulation complies with Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). As such, and for the purpose of completing the Record, the Court acknowledges and ACCEPTS the Parties’ Stipulation (Doc. 15). Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc. are DISMISSED, without prejudice. Plaintiff’s claims against this defendant having now been resolved, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc. as a party to this action. SO ORDERED, this 1st day of June 2026. /s/ W. Louis Sands W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Leresa Harris v. United States of America, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leresa-harris-v-united-states-of-america-et-al-gamd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack