Radford v. Harrelson (INMATE 1)(CONSENT), No. 3:2018cv00003 - Document 22 (M.D. Ala. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that: 1. The plaintiff's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. 2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 3. Costs are taxed against plaintiff. A separate Final Judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Honorable Judge Susan Russ Walker on 10/3/2018. (dmn, )

Download PDF
Radford v. Harrelson (INMATE 1)(CONSENT) Doc. 22 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION CHRISTOPHER LUKE RADFORD, Plaintiff, v. ZACHARY HARRELSON – ALABAMA STATE TROOPER, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-003-SRW (WO) MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on a complaint filed by Christopher Luke Radford, a pre-trial detainee at the time he filed the complaint. In the instant case, Radford challenges the constitutionality of actions taken against him by the defendant during the investigation of a June 13, 2017 car accident that involved the death of an occupant of the vehicle. On August 7, 2018, Radford filed a motion to dismiss this case. Doc. 19. On August 15, 2018, the defendant filed a stipulation of dismissal stating that “the defendant will stipulate and agree to dismissal of the above-styled action.” Doc. 20.1 Although the defendant asserts that his stipulation of dismissal is filed pursuant to Rule 41, F.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), this rule only permits voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff. Moreover, dismissal by stipulation is not appropriate unless the stipulation is “signed by all parties who have appeared.” Id. The stipulation of dismissal is not signed by the plaintiff. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Upon consideration of the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and the defendant’s stipulation of dismissal, the court finds that the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss is due to be granted and this case dismissed without prejudice. II. DISCUSSION Dismissal without prejudice at the insistence of the plaintiff is committed to the sound discretion of this court, see Rule 41(a)(2), F.R.Civ.P., and absent some plain legal prejudice to the defendants, denial of the dismissal constitutes an abuse of this court’s discretion. McCants v. Ford Motor Company, Inc., 781 F.2d 855 (11th Cir. 1986). Litigation costs, inconvenience to the defendant, or the prospect of a second or subsequent lawsuit do not constitute clear legal prejudice. Id.; see also Durham v. Florida East Coast Railway Company, 385 F.2d 366 (5th Cir. 1967). After review of the pleadings filed by the parties, the court concludes that this case is due to be dismissed without prejudice on the motion of the plaintiff. III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The plaintiff’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. 2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 3. Costs are taxed against the plaintiff. A separate Final Judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. 2 Done, on this the 3rd day of October, 2018. /s/ Susan Russ Walker Susan Russ Walker United States Magistrate Judge 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.