Filed: Nov. 22, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 22, 2019
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING CASE PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a)(2) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE DOLLY M. GEE , District Judge . On June 26, 2019, plaintiff, filed a pro se civil rights action herein pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 ("Complaint"). On August 8, 2019, defendant Bank of America filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff did not timely file an opposition to that motion ( see ECF No. 25) and, on September 24, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommend
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING CASE PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a)(2) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE DOLLY M. GEE , District Judge . On June 26, 2019, plaintiff, filed a pro se civil rights action herein pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 ("Complaint"). On August 8, 2019, defendant Bank of America filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff did not timely file an opposition to that motion ( see ECF No. 25) and, on September 24, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommendi..
More
ORDER DISMISSING CASE PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a)(2) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
DOLLY M. GEE, District Judge.
On June 26, 2019, plaintiff, filed a pro se civil rights action herein pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Complaint"). On August 8, 2019, defendant Bank of America filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff did not timely file an opposition to that motion (see ECF No. 25) and, on September 24, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that Bank of America's Motion to Dismiss be granted without prejudice for failure to state a claim, and for failure to prosecute and follow court orders. (ECF No. 30). Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to do so has expired. On September 20, 2019, defendants County of Riverside, Hestrin, and Ramirez filed an Answer to the Complaint. (ECF No. 27). On October 18, 2019, defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 31), and the Magistrate Judge ordered plaintiff to file his opposition no later than November 20, 2019 (ECF No. 33). Plaintiff did not do so. On October 30, 2019, defendants Edwards and Hasegawa file a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 36), and the Magistrate Judge ordered plaintiff to file his opposition no later than December 2, 2019 (ECF No. 37).
On November 20, 2019, plaintiff filed a form "Notice of Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a) or (c)," in which he checked the box indicating that "[t]his action is dismissed by the Plaintiff(s) in its entirety." (ECF No. 52).
Rule 41 allows for the voluntary dismissal of an action by a petitioner without prejudice and without a court order before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1); Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman Am. Express, Inc., 813 F.2d 1532, 1534 (9th Cir. 1987). Where, as here, a defendant has submitted an answer, "an action may be dismissed only by court order." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).
Accordingly, having considered plaintiff's Notice of Dismissal, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this action is hereby dismissed without prejudice.
