Lewis v. North Carolina Department of Public Safety, 1:15-cv-284-FDW. (2018)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20180613e34
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jun. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 12, 2018
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY , Chief District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Lewis' Response to Defendant Uhren's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 76), in which he seeks voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Plaintiff Lewis and Defendants have been provided the opportunity to object to the Court's characterization of Plaintiff Lewis' Response as a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. (Doc. No. 80). Neither Plaintiff Lewis nor any Defendant has objected
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY , Chief District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Lewis' Response to Defendant Uhren's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 76), in which he seeks voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Plaintiff Lewis and Defendants have been provided the opportunity to object to the Court's characterization of Plaintiff Lewis' Response as a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. (Doc. No. 80). Neither Plaintiff Lewis nor any Defendant has objected ..
More
ORDER
FRANK D. WHITNEY, Chief District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Lewis' Response to Defendant Uhren's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 76), in which he seeks voluntary dismissal without prejudice.
Plaintiff Lewis and Defendants have been provided the opportunity to object to the Court's characterization of Plaintiff Lewis' Response as a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. (Doc. No. 80). Neither Plaintiff Lewis nor any Defendant has objected and the deadline to respond has expired. Plaintiff Lewis' Response is therefore construed as a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, and is granted.
The pending Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants D'Amico and Uhren alleging that Plaintiff Lewis failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, (Doc. Nos. 62, 81), will be denied as moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Lewis's pro se Response, (Doc. No. 76), is construed as a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, and is GRANTED.
2. Defendants Uhren and D'Amico's Motions for Summary Judgment, (Doc. Nos. 62, 81), are DENIED as moot.
3. The Clerk is instructed to terminate this action as to Plaintiff Lewis.
Source: Leagle
