Barney v. Peters. M.D.

United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

Barney v. Peters. M.D.

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

FRANK M. BARNEY, individually ) and as Administrator of the ) Estate of SONCERA ) KIMBERLY BARNEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV420-173 ) GREGORY T. PETERS. M.D., and ) REAL RADIOLOGY, LLC, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER The Court directed Plaintiff to show cause why the unnamed defendants “John Does 1-5” and “John Does, Inc.’s 1-5” should not be dismissed from this case. Doc. 138. The parties subsequently filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal of Defendants John Doe’s 1-5 and John Doe, Inc.’s 1-5. Doc. 139. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), a plaintiff may dismiss an action by filing “a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” “Rule 41(a)(1) is [also] a proper mechanism to dismiss less than all the parties to a controversy.” Jackson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC,

2020 WL 476698

, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 29, 2020). Because the joint stipulation is signed by all the parties who have appeared, the parties’ request is GRANTED. Doc. 139. A dismissal is without prejudice unless a notice or stipulation states otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). Here, since the parties do not indicate whether they stipulate to a dismissal with or without prejudice,

see generally doc. 139, Defendants John Doe’s 1-5 and John Doe, Inc.’s 1- 5 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is DIRECTED to amend the case caption to remove John Doe’s 1-5 and John Doe, Inc.’s 1-5 as defendants in this case. SO ORDERED, this 27th day of March, 2023.

( Lnigho~d (ex CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Reference

Status
Unknown