IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION ANTHONY OLIVER, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 5:24-cv-00426-TES TYRONE OLIVER, et al., Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS

On November 5, 2025, Pro Se Plaintiff Anthony Oliver filed a Motion to Dismiss Action Without Prejudice. [Doc. 44]. In her motion, Plaintiff cites Rule 41(a)(i)(A)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Id. at p. 1]. However, the Court notes that Rule 41(a)(i)(A)(1) does not exist. Plaintiff likely meant to cite Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(i)(A)(1). Rule 41 allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action under certain circumstances. The provision Plaintiff cited here allows her to voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice by filing “a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment[.]” Id. However, this provision is inapplicable here because the Defendants have served an answer. See [Doc. 1-1, p. 57]. In fact, this case has proceeded almost through the close of discovery. [Doc. 43]. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot move to dismiss under Rule 41(a)(i)(A)(1). With that said, pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally. United States v. Garcia,

, 514 (11th Cir. 2019). Therefore, the Court construes Plaintiff’s

motion as brought under Rule 41(a)(2), rather than 41(a)(1). Cf. Simmons v. McDonough, No. 4:06-cv-00245-MP-WCS,

, at *3 (N.D. Fla. May 3, 2007); U.S. v. Quezada,

(11th Cir. 2011). Rule 41(a)(2) provides that “[e]xcept as

provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). “A court will grant a motion for voluntary dismissal unless the defendant will suffer clear legal

prejudice other than the mere prospect of a second lawsuit.” City of Jacksonville v. Shoppes of Lakeside, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-850-HES-MCR,

, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 17, 2025) (internal citations omitted). Here, Defendants will not suffer clear legal prejudice, so the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. This case is hereby

DISMISSED without prejudice. SO ORDERED, this 7th day of November, 2025.

S/ Tilman E. Self, III___________________ TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT