Boyd v. Carle Foundation Hospital, No. 2:2011cv02232 - Document 28 (C.D. Ill. 2013)
Court Description: OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 02/05/2013. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Plaintiff failed to advise this Court. Therefore, Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion (d/e 27 ), provided by Defendant and to which Plaintiff provided the signature page (d/e [27-1]) is GRANTED. The original Unopposed Motion (d/e 25 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (d/e 27 ) is GRANTED. This cause is dismissed, with prejudice, each side to bear his or its own costs. CASE CLOSED.(DM, ilcd)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
E-FILED Tuesday, 05 February, 2013 03:25:47 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION LARRY BOYD, Plaintiff, v. CARLE FOUNDATION HOSPITAL, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 11-2232 OPINION SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge. On January 17, 2013, Plaintiff Larry Boyd, appearing pro se, filed an Unopposed Motion for Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (d/e 25). Plaintiff requested that the Court dismiss the action with prejudice but retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. In a Text Order dated January 17, 2013, this Court advised Plaintiff that the Court could not retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement merely by stating that it was retaining jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court asked that Plaintiff either file a Motion that did not request that the Court retain jurisdiction or otherwise advise the Court how he wished to proceed. On January 24, 2013, Plaintiff sent the Clerk s office page 2 of a document requesting the Court enter an Order dismissing the action with prejudice and also containing Plaintiff s signature. See d/e 27-1. The Clerk s office also obtained from defense counsel a copy of the Unopposed Motion for Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 that defense counsel had provided to Plaintiff for filing following the Court s first text order. See d/e 27 (removing the retain-jurisdiction language). In a Text Order dated January 24, 2013, this Court directed Plaintiff to advise the Court, in writing and by January 30, 2013, whether the Motion provided by defense counsel (d/e 27) was the Motion Plaintiff intended to file in response to the Court s January 17, 2013 Text Order. Plaintiff failed to advise this Court. Therefore, Plaintiff s Unopposed Motion (d/e 27), provided by Defendant and to which Plaintiff provided the signature page (d/e 27-1) is GRANTED. The original Unopposed Motion (d/e 25) is DENIED AS MOOT. For the reasons stated, Plaintiff s Unopposed Motion for Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (d/e 27) is GRANTED. This cause is dismissed, Page 2 of 3 with prejudice, each side to bear his or its own costs. CASE CLOSED. ENTER: February 5, 2013 FOR THE COURT: s/Sue E Myerscough SUE E. MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 3 of 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.
