McCullough v. Johnson

W.D. Oklahoma

McCullough v. Johnson

DecidedOctober 9, 2025

Docket5:25-cv-01116

StatusUnknown

This text of McCullough v. Johnson (McCullough v. Johnson) 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

McCullough v. Johnson, (W.D. Okla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA PERRY ADRON MCCULLOUGH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. CIV-25-1116-SLP UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) ) )

O R D E R Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Notice of Withdrawal [Doc. No. 9] wherein Plaintiff seeks to “withdraw[] the above-captioned case.” The Court construes Plaintiff’s filing as a notice of dismissal filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which allows a plaintiff to “dismiss an action without a court order . . . before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment[.]” Here, Defendant has not filed an answer or summary judgment motion. See De Leon v. Marcos, 659 F.3d 1276, 1283 (10th Cir. 2011) (noting that because the defendant had filed a motion to dismiss rather than an answer or motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff “could have dismissed the case unilaterally under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s filing is a self- executing termination of this action and no further action by the Court is required. See id. (“A stipulation of dismissal filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) or (ii) is self-executing and immediately strips the district court of jurisdiction over the merits.”); id. (“a voluntary dismissal is self-executing, i.e., it is effective at the moment the notice is filed with the clerk and no judicial approval is required” (quoting Janssen v. Harris, 321 F.3d 998, 1000 (10th Cir. 2003))). IT IS SO ORDERED this 9 day of October, 2025.

SCOTT L. PALK 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 PERRY ADRON MCCULLOUGH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. CIV-25-1116-SLP UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) ) )

O R D E R Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Notice of Withdrawal [Doc. No. 9] wherein Plaintiff seeks to “withdraw[] the above-captioned case.” The Court construes Plaintiff’s filing as a notice of dismissal filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which allows a plaintiff to “dismiss an action without a court order . . . before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment[.]” Here, Defendant has not filed an answer or summary judgment motion. See De Leon v. Marcos, 659 F.3d 1276, 1283 (10th Cir. 2011) (noting that because the defendant had filed a motion to dismiss rather than an answer or motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff “could have dismissed the case unilaterally under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s filing is a self- executing termination of this action and no further action by the Court is required. See id. (“A stipulation of dismissal filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) or (ii) is self-executing and immediately strips the district court of jurisdiction over the merits.”); id. (“a voluntary dismissal is self-executing, i.e., it is effective at the moment the notice is filed with the clerk and no judicial approval is required” (quoting Janssen v. Harris, 321 F.3d 998, 1000 (10th Cir. 2003))). IT IS SO ORDERED this 9 day of October, 2025.

SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

McCullough v. Johnson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccullough-v-johnson-okwd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack