Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

EASON v. ATG CREDIT, LLC, 2:14-cv-110-FtM-38DNF. (2014)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20140520832 Visitors: 5
Filed: May 19, 2014
Latest Update: May 19, 2014
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Notice of Voluntary Dismissal ( Doc. #9 ) filed on May 19, 2014. Plaintiff previously filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal indicating that this matter was dismissed without prejudice. ( Doc. #6 ). Thereafter, the case was dismissed without prejudice and judgment was entered. ( Doc. #7 ; Doc. #8 ). Now, Plaintiff has filed a new Notice of Voluntary Dismissal this time indicating that this matter is dismiss
More

ORDER1

SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. #9) filed on May 19, 2014. Plaintiff previously filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal indicating that this matter was dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. #6). Thereafter, the case was dismissed without prejudice and judgment was entered. (Doc. #7; Doc. #8). Now, Plaintiff has filed a new Notice of Voluntary Dismissal this time indicating that this matter is dismissed with prejudice. This Notice is brought pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). A review of the docket reveals Defendant has not filed an answer or motion for summary judgment. Therefore, this matter is due to be dismissed with prejudice.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. #1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close the case, terminate any pending motions, and enter judgment accordingly.

DONE and ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other Web sites, this court 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.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer