Phoenix v. Clarke

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division DANIEL W. PHOENIX, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:23cv356 HAROLD CLARKE, e7 ai., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION On July 2, 2024, Defendants Amonette, Clarke, Herrick and Oates filed an answer. (ECF No. 30.) On July 19, 2024, the Court received Plaintiff's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Action. (ECF No. 32.) Because Defendants filed an answer, the motion is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Generally, a plaintiffs motion for dismissal without prejudice should not be denied absent substantial prejudice to Defendants. See Andes v. Versant Corp., 788 F.2d 1033, 1036 (4th Cir. 1986). Defendants have not opposed Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss, and the Court finds that Defendants will not be substantially prejudiced. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Action, (ECF No. 32), will be GRANTED. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. An appropriate Order shall issue.

Date: Alaolsaey cman tft Richmond, Virginia United States District Judge