(PS) Ferrantino v. Sacramento County Office of Education

Opinion

ANTHONY FERRANTINO, No. 2:18-cv-3063 DB PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER EDUCATION, Defendant. On June 24, 2020, this action was reassigned to the undersigned pursuant to the parties’ consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (ECF No. 41.) On April 10, 2020, defendant filed an answer. (ECF No. 35.) On April 22, 2021, plaintiff filed a request to “proceed no further in this complaint,” because plaintiff “has entered hospice care[.]” (ECF No. 61 at 1.) Pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure once a defendant has answered the court may dismiss an action at the plaintiff’s request “on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Here, the undersigned finds good cause to grant plaintiff’s request. See generally Sams v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 625 F.2d 273, 277 (9th Cir. 1980) (“A Rule 41(a)(2) motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the district court, and its order is not subject to reversal unless the district court abused its discretion.”). ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs April 22, 2021 request to not proceed (ECF No. 61) is granted; 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice; and 3. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case. Dated: May 3, 2021 ‘BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] DLB6 DB/orders/orders.consent/ferrantino3063.vol.dism.ord