UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JOSEPH VERRIER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:21-cv-500-MW/MJF

MICHELLE RENO, et al.,

Defendants. / REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before the undersigned on Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss his claims against Defendant Michelle Reno. Doc. 106. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that the District Court grant this unopposed motion. I. DISCUSSION “[A]n action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request . . . by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). “[I]n most cases, a voluntary dismissal [under Rule 41(a)(2)] should be granted unless the defendant will suffer clear legal prejudice, other than the mere prospect of a subsequent lawsuit, as a result.” Potenberg v. Boston Scientific Corp.,

(11th Cir. 2001) (quoting

McCants v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.,

(11th Cir. 1986)). Plaintiff has indicated that Defendants do not oppose the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Reno. Doc. 106 at 1. On this record, the

undersigned finds that none of the Defendants would lose a substantial right by the dismissal. Therefore, dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) of Plaintiff’s claims against Reno is appropriate.

II. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the District Court:

1. GRANT Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to dismiss his claims against Defendant Michelle Reno, Doc. 106. 2. DISMISS Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Michelle Reno.

3. REFER this case back to the undersigned to address Plaintiff’s remaining claims. At Pensacola, Florida, this 12th day of August, 2024.

/s/ Michael J. Frank Michael J. Frank United States Magistrate Judge NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

The District Court referred this case to the undersigned to address preliminary matters and to make recommendations regarding dispositive matters. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also

(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of the report and recommendation. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only and does not control. An objecting party must serve a copy of its objections upon all other parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected- to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1;

.