Miller v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 4:17-cv-04104. (2019)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20190213765
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jan. 23, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 23, 2019
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE BARRY A. BRYANT , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Complaint Without Prejudice. ECF No. 19. Plaintiff filed this Motion on January 14, 2019. Id. With this Motion, Plaintiff seeks to voluntarily dismiss his action. Id. On January 14, 2019, Defendant responded to this Motion. ECF No. 20. In this response, Defendant raises no objections to this Motion. Id. Thus, the Court finds this Motion
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE BARRY A. BRYANT , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Complaint Without Prejudice. ECF No. 19. Plaintiff filed this Motion on January 14, 2019. Id. With this Motion, Plaintiff seeks to voluntarily dismiss his action. Id. On January 14, 2019, Defendant responded to this Motion. ECF No. 20. In this response, Defendant raises no objections to this Motion. Id. Thus, the Court finds this Motion s..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
BARRY A. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Complaint Without Prejudice. ECF No. 19. Plaintiff filed this Motion on January 14, 2019. Id. With this Motion, Plaintiff seeks to voluntarily dismiss his action. Id. On January 14, 2019, Defendant responded to this Motion. ECF No. 20. In this response, Defendant raises no objections to this Motion. Id. Thus, the Court finds this Motion should be GRANTED, and Plaintiff's case should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The Parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
