ORDER

SUSAN O. HICKEY, Chief District Judge.

Before the Court is the parties' Joint Stipulation of Dismissal. (ECF No. 23). The Court finds that no response is necessary and that the matter is ripe for consideration.

On July 8, 2019, the parties filed the instant stipulation, stating that they have resolved all disputes between them and that each party agrees to bear its own fees and costs. The stipulation further states that Plaintiff's claims may be dismissed with prejudice.

An action may be dismissed by "a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). "Caselaw concerning stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is clear that the entry of such a stipulation of dismissal is effective automatically and does not require judicial approval." Gardiner v. A.H. Robins Co., 747 F.2d 1180, 1189 (8th Cir. 1984). Thus, Plaintiff's claims against Defendant were effectively dismissed when the parties filed the instant stipulation. However, for purposes of maintaining the Court's docket, the Court nonetheless issues this order.

The instant stipulation is signed by both parties. Accordingly, all of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. If any party desires that the terms of settlement be a part of the record therein, those terms should be reduced to writing and filed with the Court within thirty (30) days of the entry of this judgment. The Court retains jurisdiction to vacate this order upon cause shown that the settlement has not been completed and further litigation is necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.