IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
April 1, 2013
MR. MICHAEL B. WOOLMAN,
VALENTINO'S EMPLOYEE'S & FAMILY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: John M. Gerrard United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal. (Filing No. 10.) Also pending is Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order. (Filing No. 1.)
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, a plaintiff may dismiss an action by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment, or by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). In addition, a court may grant a request for voluntary dismissal "on terms that the court considers proper." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).
Plaintiff filed his Motion for Voluntary Dismissal on March 27, 2013. (Filing No. 10.) In his Motion, Plaintiff asks the court to dismiss this matter because "the party was not sought as true." (Id. at CM/ECF p. 1.) Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and Defendants in this matter have not been served with his Complaint. In light of this, Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal is granted in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) and this matter is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (filing no. 10) is granted and this matter is dismissed without prejudice.
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order (filing no. 1) is denied as moot.
3. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order.
BY THE COURT:
*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.