Davis v. Parker et al, No. 3:2017cv00232 - Document 30 (E.D. Tenn. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. The Court will GRANT Plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal 27 . This case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. An Appropriate Judgment Will Enter. Signed by District Judge Travis R McDonough on 6/18/2018. (AML, ) M/O mailed to Reginald Davis
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Davis v. Parker et al Doc. 30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE REGINALD W. DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. TONY PARKER, CHRIS BRUN, SHAWN PHILLIPS, GARY HAMBY, STANTON D. HEIDLE, II, and MATT ENGLE, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 3:17-CV-232 Judge Travis R. McDonough Magistrate Judge Debra C. Poplin MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se motion for voluntary dismissal [Doc. 27]. Plaintiff seeks to dismiss his claims against Defendants due to: 1) the financial burden of litigation; and 2) his “lack of legal expertise,” which Plaintiff believes has affected the prosecution of his claims [Id.]. However, because most Defendants filed a responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s complaint, on June 8, 2018, the Court ordered Defendants to file a notice indicating whether they opposed Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal [Doc. 28]. On June 11, 2018, Defendants Brun, Engle, Hamby, Heidle, Parker, and Phillips filed a notice stating they did not oppose Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal [Doc. 29]. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), the Court is authorized to order dismissal “on terms the Court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2); see McCord v Bd. of Educ. of Fleming Cty., Ky., No. 17–55448, 2018 WL 1724560, at *5 (6th Cir. Jan. 30, 2018). The purpose of requiring the Court to approve the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims is to “protect Dockets.Justia.com the nonmovant from unfair treatment.” Grover by Grover v. Eli Lilly & Co., 33 F.3d 716, 718 (6th Cir. 1994). “Whether dismissal should be granted under the authority of Rule 41(a)(2) is within the sound discretion of the district court.” Id. In the present case, Defendants have responded indicating that they do not oppose the motion for voluntary dismissal [Doc. 29]. Accordingly, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal [Doc. 27]. This case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Therefore, the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Engle, Hamby, Heidle, and Parker [Doc. 23], and the motion for an extension of time to file an answer filed by Defendant Brun [Doc. 25], will be DENIED AS MOOT. AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT WILL ENTER. /s/ Travis R. McDonough TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
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.
