Owen v. United States

E.D. Texas

Owen v. United States

DecidedAugust 27, 2021

Docket4:19-cv-00377

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Owen v. United States, (E.D. Tex. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION RANDY LYNN OWEN, #27167-078 § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19cv377 § CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 4:17cr106(1) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Pro se Movant Randy Lynn Owen filed a response in this case (Dkt. #11) to the Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal. In it, Movant states that he does not object to the Court dismissing his case and that he “[withdraws] from any further argument,” noting that he is unable to pursue the case further. Movant’s response (Dkt. #11) is construed as a motion for voluntary dismissal. Dismissals by court order are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) that provides, in pertinent part, “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” “Unless the order states otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph (2) is without prejudice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). The decision to dismiss an action rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and may only be reversed for an abuse of that discretion.” Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125, 129 (5th Cir. 198). Generally, a motion for voluntary dismissal should be freely granted unless the non-moving party will suffer some plain legal prejudice other than the possibility of a second lawsuit. United States ex rel. Doe v. Dow Chem. Co., 343 F.3d 325, 330 (5th Cir. 2003). The Court finds Respondent will not suffer plain legal prejudice from its dismissal and it is appropriate to dismiss the case pursuant to Movant’s construed motion for voluntary dismissal. See Elbaor v. Tripath Imaging, Inc., 279 F.3d 314, 317 (5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Movant’s construed motion for voluntary dismissal (Dkt. #11) is GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). For administrative and statistical purposes, all motions by any party not previously ruled

upon are DENIED.

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION RANDY LYNN OWEN, #27167-078 § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19cv377 § CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 4:17cr106(1) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Pro se Movant Randy Lynn Owen filed a response in this case (Dkt. #11) to the Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal. In it, Movant states that he does not object to the Court dismissing his case and that he “[withdraws] from any further argument,” noting that he is unable to pursue the case further. Movant’s response (Dkt. #11) is construed as a motion for voluntary dismissal. Dismissals by court order are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) that provides, in pertinent part, “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” “Unless the order states otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph (2) is without prejudice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). The decision to dismiss an action rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and may only be reversed for an abuse of that discretion.” Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125, 129 (5th Cir. 198). Generally, a motion for voluntary dismissal should be freely granted unless the non-moving party will suffer some plain legal prejudice other than the possibility of a second lawsuit. United States ex rel. Doe v. Dow Chem. Co., 343 F.3d 325, 330 (5th Cir. 2003). The Court finds Respondent will not suffer plain legal prejudice from its dismissal and it is appropriate to dismiss the case pursuant to Movant’s construed motion for voluntary dismissal. See Elbaor v. Tripath Imaging, Inc., 279 F.3d 314, 317 (5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Movant’s construed motion for voluntary dismissal (Dkt. #11) is GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). For administrative and statistical purposes, all motions by any party not previously ruled

upon are DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Owen v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owen-v-united-states-txed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack