IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA PERRY ADRON MCCULLOUGH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. CIV-25-1116-SLP UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) ) )

O R D E R Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Notice of Withdrawal [Doc. No. 9] wherein Plaintiff seeks to “withdraw[] the above-captioned case.” The Court construes Plaintiff’s filing as a notice of dismissal filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which allows a plaintiff to “dismiss an action without a court order . . . before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment[.]” Here, Defendant has not filed an answer or summary judgment motion. See De Leon v. Marcos,

(10th Cir. 2011) (noting that because the defendant had filed a motion to dismiss rather than an answer or motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff “could have dismissed the case unilaterally under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s filing is a self- executing termination of this action and no further action by the Court is required. See

(“A stipulation of dismissal filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) or (ii) is self-executing and immediately strips the district court of jurisdiction over the merits.”);

(“a voluntary dismissal is self-executing, i.e., it is effective at the moment the notice is filed with the clerk and no judicial approval is required” (quoting Janssen v. Harris,

(10th Cir. 2003))). IT IS SO ORDERED this 9 day of October, 2025.

SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE