REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

KAYMANI D. WEST, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Billy Lee Lisenby, Jr., proceeding pro se, filed this civil action on July 21, 2014, after he was denied parole by the Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services. ECF No. 1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani West for pretrial handling. On January 26, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgement. ECF No. 43. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order on January 27, 2015, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising him of the importance of such motions and of the need for him to file an adequate response. ECF No. 44. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Defendants' motion may be granted, thereby ending this case. Thereafter, the court granted four Motions for Extensions for Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' dispositive motion. See ECF Nos. 51, 58, 61, 71. Pursuant to the court's instruction, Defendants filed status reports with the court and represented that Plaintiff had access to his legal materials. See ECF Nos. 65, 74. With the extension granted by the court Plaintiff's deadline to respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment was July 8, 2015. ECF No. 85.

Instead of filing a Response, on July 7, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to voluntarily dismiss his case stating that he does "not wish to pursue it any further." ECF No. 87. In their Response to Plaintiff's Motion, Defendants consented to "the dismissal of this matter in its entirety WITH PREJUDICE." ECF No. 88 (emphasis in Response). Because Plaintiff filed his Motion to Dismiss after Defendants filed their Answer, he fails to meet the requirements to dismiss this action without a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). Under Rule 41(a)(2), a district court may dismiss an action "at the plaintiff's request only by a court order, on terms that the court considers proper." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). "The purpose of Rule 41(a)(2) is freely to allow voluntary dismissals unless the parties will be unfairly prejudiced." Davis v. USX Corp., 819 F.2d 1270, 1273 (4th Cir. 1987). "In considering a motion for voluntary dismissal, the district court must focus primarily on protecting the interests of the defendant." Id. "A plaintiff's motion under Rule 41(a)(2) should not be denied absent substantial prejudice to the defendant." Andes v. Versant Corp., 788 F.2d 1033, 1036 (4th Cir. 1986). Unless the order states otherwise, a dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).

Plaintiff has indicated that he seeks to dismiss his case, and Defendants have consented to such. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's action be dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation

The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. "[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must `only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).

Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:

Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).