IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

DEANTE GHOLSTON, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Case No. 5:23-cv-00079-TES-CHW : Commissioner TIMOTHY WARD, et al., : Proceedings Under

: Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge Defendants. : :

ORDER Plaintiff Deante Gholston has filed a motion to dismiss the above-styled case. (Doc. 28). He asks to dismiss the complaint “[i]f the defendants will accept that I dismiss my complaint without plaintiff recovering nothing and also defendants recovering nothing.” (Id.) Alternatively, he also filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to Defendant Ward’s pre-answer motion to dismiss. (Docs. 15, 29). There are two sets of unnamed Defendants for whom personal service is pending. See (Docs. 26, 27). Because they have not filed an answer, Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss his claims against them under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2004) (“Rule 41 allows a plaintiff to dismiss all of his claims against a particular defendant”). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to recall the personal service paperwork (Docs. 26, 27) issued against the remaining unnamed Defendants. The entire complaint cannot be voluntarily dismissed at this juncture, however, because Defendant Ward filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss and the parties have not filed a stipulation of dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). Therefore, the Court may dismiss this action “only by court order, on terms that the Court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 63) will remain pending. Defendant Ward is hereby DIRECTED to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion by August 16, 2023. Defendant Ward’s response should address whether he objects to the dismissal or is seeking any costs as contemplated by Plaintiff’s motion.

Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file a response to Defendant Ward’s motion is GRANTED. (Doc. 29). In the event Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss is denied as to Defendant Ward, Plaintiff’s response to Defendant Ward’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 15) will be due within 21 days of that order. No response is due at this time. SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of August, 2023.

s/ Charles H. Weigle_________ Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate Judge