Thompson v. Department of Corrections

W.D. Oklahoma

Thompson v. Department of Corrections

DecidedSeptember 11, 2025

Docket5:25-cv-00837

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Thompson v. Department of Corrections, (W.D. Okla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

TOMMY THOMPSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-837-SLP ) DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ) ) Defendants. )

O R D E R

Before the Court are the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell [Doc. No. 6] and Petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 7]. The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to follow the Court’s rules and orders. See [Doc. No. 6]. Instead of filing an objection, Petitioner filed his motion asking to “withdraw [his] habeas corpus so that [he] can first exhaust state remedies.” See [Doc. No. 7] at 1. The Court construes Petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw as a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). See Clark v. Tansy, 13 F.3d 1407, 1411 (10th Cir. 1993) (applying Rule 41 to habeas actions). Where, as here, a notice of voluntary dismissal is filed before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment, Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) confers upon a plaintiff the “absolute right to dismiss without prejudice and no action is required on the part of the court.” Janssen v. Harris, 321 F.3d 998, 1000 (10th Cir.2003). “Once the notice of dismissal has been filed, the district court loses jurisdiction over the dismissed claims and may not address the merits of such claims or issue further orders pertaining to them.” /d. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines to adopt the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 6] as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED this 11" day of September, 2025. ) tz bbb SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

TOMMY THOMPSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-837-SLP ) DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ) ) Defendants. )

O R D E R

Before the Court are the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell [Doc. No. 6] and Petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 7]. The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to follow the Court’s rules and orders. See [Doc. No. 6]. Instead of filing an objection, Petitioner filed his motion asking to “withdraw [his] habeas corpus so that [he] can first exhaust state remedies.” See [Doc. No. 7] at 1. The Court construes Petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw as a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). See Clark v. Tansy, 13 F.3d 1407, 1411 (10th Cir. 1993) (applying Rule 41 to habeas actions). Where, as here, a notice of voluntary dismissal is filed before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment, Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) confers upon a plaintiff the “absolute right to dismiss without prejudice and no action is required on the part of the court.” Janssen v. Harris, 321 F.3d 998, 1000 (10th Cir.2003). “Once the notice of dismissal has been filed, the district court loses jurisdiction over the dismissed claims and may not address the merits of such claims or issue further orders pertaining to them.” /d. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines to adopt the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 6] as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED this 11" day of September, 2025. ) tz bbb SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Thompson v. Department of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-department-of-corrections-okwd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack