Perales v. Michigan State Housing Development Authority

W.D. Michigan

Perales v. Michigan State Housing Development Authority

DecidedMarch 28, 2023

Docket1:23-cv-00035

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Perales v. Michigan State Housing Development Authority, (W.D. Mich. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER PERALES, ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 1:23-cv-35 -v- ) ) Honorable Paul L. Maloney MICHIGAN STATE HOUSING ) DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ) Defendant. ) )

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff Christopher Perales submitted a “to whom it may concern” letter along with an application to proceed without prepayment of fees. Upon receipt of the two documents, the Clerk opened this lawsuit. The Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. The Magistrate Judge then issued a report recommending that the Court dismiss this lawsuit for failing to state a claim (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff submitted a document that has been docketed as his objections (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff now requests that he be permitted to withdraw or dismiss this lawsuit (ECF No. 10). He expresses an interest in refiling the lawsuit in state court with the assistance of counsel. Rule 41(a)(1)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss his or her lawsuit before the opposing party files an answer or files a motion for summary judgment. Defendant has not been served with a summons and the complaint and has not filed any answer or motion. A Rule 41(a)(1)(i) dismissal is self- executing. , 395 F.3d 477, 480 (4th Cir. 2005) , 321 F.3d 998, 1000 (10th Cir. 2003). The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found no problem with the dismissal of a lawsuit under similar circumstances—the Magistrate Judge had issued a report recommending dismissal of the action, the plaintiff initially filed objections and then filed a request to dismiss under Rule 41(a)(1). , 838 F.2d 470 (6th Cir. 1988)

(unpublished table opinion). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice. The Court DISMISSES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s pending motion for a hearing (ECF No. 6) and the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 7). IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: March 28, 2023 /s/ Paul L. Maloney Paul L. Maloney United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER PERALES, ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 1:23-cv-35 -v- ) ) Honorable Paul L. Maloney MICHIGAN STATE HOUSING ) DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ) Defendant. ) )

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff Christopher Perales submitted a “to whom it may concern” letter along with an application to proceed without prepayment of fees. Upon receipt of the two documents, the Clerk opened this lawsuit. The Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. The Magistrate Judge then issued a report recommending that the Court dismiss this lawsuit for failing to state a claim (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff submitted a document that has been docketed as his objections (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff now requests that he be permitted to withdraw or dismiss this lawsuit (ECF No. 10). He expresses an interest in refiling the lawsuit in state court with the assistance of counsel. Rule 41(a)(1)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss his or her lawsuit before the opposing party files an answer or files a motion for summary judgment. Defendant has not been served with a summons and the complaint and has not filed any answer or motion. A Rule 41(a)(1)(i) dismissal is self- executing. , 395 F.3d 477, 480 (4th Cir. 2005) , 321 F.3d 998, 1000 (10th Cir. 2003). The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found no problem with the dismissal of a lawsuit under similar circumstances—the Magistrate Judge had issued a report recommending dismissal of the action, the plaintiff initially filed objections and then filed a request to dismiss under Rule 41(a)(1). , 838 F.2d 470 (6th Cir. 1988)

(unpublished table opinion). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice. The Court DISMISSES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s pending motion for a hearing (ECF No. 6) and the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 7). IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: March 28, 2023 /s/ Paul L. Maloney Paul L. Maloney United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Perales v. Michigan State Housing Development Authority, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perales-v-michigan-state-housing-development-authority-miwd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack