Miller v. Winchell

S.D. Georgia

Miller v. Winchell

DecidedJune 24, 2020

Docket6:19-cv-00121

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Miller v. Winchell, (S.D. Ga. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION

ERIC MILLER, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:19-cv-121 V. DR. MARK WINCHELL, Defendant.

ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal.’ Doc. 11. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's construed Motion, DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint, and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter an appropriate judgment of dismissal. SO ORDERED, this OP tay of June, 2020. \ Vp Nye? I (Littl NDAL HALE, CHIEF JUDGE YSTATES DISTRICT COURT OUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

' Although Plaintiff entitled this filing his Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, he provided no legal basis for his Notice. The Court construes Plaintiff's filing as a Motion made under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “Federal courts sometimes will ignore the legal label that a pro se litigant attaches to a motion and recharacterize the motion in order to place it within a different legal category.” Retic v. United States, 215 F. App’x 962, 964 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381 (2003)). Federal courts “may do so in order to avoid an unnecessary dismissal, to avoid inappropriately stringent application of formal labeling requirements, or to create a better correspondence between the substance of a pro se motion’s claim and its underlying legal basis.” Id. (quoting Castro, 540 U.S. at 381-82).

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION

ERIC MILLER, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:19-cv-121 V. DR. MARK WINCHELL, Defendant.

ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal.’ Doc. 11. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's construed Motion, DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint, and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter an appropriate judgment of dismissal. SO ORDERED, this OP tay of June, 2020. \ Vp Nye? I (Littl NDAL HALE, CHIEF JUDGE YSTATES DISTRICT COURT OUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

' Although Plaintiff entitled this filing his Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, he provided no legal basis for his Notice. The Court construes Plaintiff's filing as a Motion made under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “Federal courts sometimes will ignore the legal label that a pro se litigant attaches to a motion and recharacterize the motion in order to place it within a different legal category.” Retic v. United States, 215 F. App’x 962, 964 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381 (2003)). Federal courts “may do so in order to avoid an unnecessary dismissal, to avoid inappropriately stringent application of formal labeling requirements, or to create a better correspondence between the substance of a pro se motion’s claim and its underlying legal basis.” Id. (quoting Castro, 540 U.S. at 381-82).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Miller v. Winchell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-winchell-gasd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack