Sammy Ciling v. County of Riverside
Sammy Ciling v. County of Riverside
Trial Court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EASTERN DIVISION 11 12 SAMMY CILING, ) No. ED CV 19-1184-DMG (PLA) ) 13 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISMISSING CASE PURSUANT ) TO RULE 41(a)(2) OF THE FEDERAL 14 v. ) RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ) 15 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, et al., ) ) 16 Defendant. ) ) 17 18 On June 26, 2019, plaintiff, filed a pro se civil rights action herein pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 191983 (“Complaint”). On August 8, 2019, defendant Bank of America filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF 20 No. 12). Plaintiff did not timely file an opposition to that motion (see ECF No. 25) and, on September 21 24, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that Bank of 22 America’s Motion to Dismiss be granted without prejudice for failure to state a claim, and for failure 23 to prosecute and follow court orders. (ECF No. 30). Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Report 24 and Recommendation, and the time to do so has expired. On September 20, 2019, defendants 25 County of Riverside, Hestrin, and Ramirez filed an Answer to the Complaint. (ECF No. 27). On 26 October 18, 2019, defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 31), and 27 the Magistrate Judge ordered plaintiff to file his opposition no later than November 20, 2019 (ECF 28 Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 36), and the Magistrate Judge ordered plaintiff to file his opposition no 2] later than December 2, 2019 (ECF No. 37). 3 On November 20, 2019, plaintiff filed a form “Notice of Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Rules 41 of Civil Procedure 41 (a) or (c),” in which he checked the box indicating that “[t]his action is dismissed by the Plaintiff(s) in its entirety.” (ECF No. 52). 6 Rule 41 allows for the voluntary dismissal of an action by a petitioner without prejudice and without a court order before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1); Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman Am. Express, Inc.,
813 F.2d 1532, 9] 1534 (9th Cir. 1987). Where, as here, a defendant has submitted an answer, “an action may be dismissed only by court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). 11 Accordingly, having considered plaintiff's Notice of Dismissal, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this action is hereby dismissed without prejudice. 13 14] DATED: November 22, 2019 Malla, Prt, Aaa OLLY M. GE 15 UNITEDtS§TATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 Presented by: 7 Salk. Meant PAULL ABRAMS 19] UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 95
Reference
- Status
- Unknown