Edward Bowen v. William K. Marshall, III, Bureau of Prisons’ Designation and...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BOWEN, Plaintiff, v. Case Number 25-cv-14023 Honorable Linda V. Parker WILLIAM K. MARSHALL, III, BUREAU OF PRISONS’ DESIGNATION AND SENTENCE COMPUTATION CENTER, and PAM BONDI, United States Attorney General, Defendants, _______________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 6) AND DISMISSING ACTION Plaintiff Edward Bowen, confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint on December 15, 2025. The Court subsequently received a letter from Plaintiff, in which he asks the Court to strike his Complaint. (ECF No. 6.) The Court construes the letter as a motion to voluntarily dismiss his Complaint. See Neu v. Adams Cnty. Jail, No. 1:12-CV-185, 2012 WL 3878717, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 6, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, No. C-1-12-185, 2012 WL 5378303 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 31, 2012). For the reasons stated below, the Court is granting Plaintiff’s motion and dismissing his Complaint without prejudice.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), before service by the adverse party of an answer or motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court by filing a notice of dismissal. Here, Plaintiff requested to voluntarily dismiss his Complaint before Defendants were even served, much less before they answered or filed a summary judgment motion.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to strike the Complaint (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED. s/ Linda V. Parker LINDA V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: February 5, 2026

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record and/or pro se parties on this date, February 5, 2026, by electronic and/or U.S. First Class mail.

s/Aaron Flanigan Case Manager