Wright v. State of Washington Department of Corrections

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA DONALD W. WRIGHT, 9 CASE NO. 3:19-CV-5279-RBL-JRC Plaintiff, 10 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION v. 11 NOTED FOR: SEPTEMBER 13, 2019 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 12 et al., 13 Defendants.

Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to withdraw complaint without prejudice (“motion for voluntary dismissal”). Dkt. 18. Defendants do not oppose plaintiff’s motion. Dkt. 19. The undersigned recommends that the motion be granted and that this case be dismissed without prejudice. The Court recommends denying plaintiff’s request for an undefined stay of this case.

DISCUSSION On April 12, 2019, defendants filed a notice of removal from Clallam County Superior Court. Dkt. 1. On April 15, 2019, defendants filed their answer. Dkt. 7. On July 1, 2019, plaintiff filed the motion for voluntary dismissal. Dkt. 18. In his motion, plaintiff requests that his complaint be dismissed without prejudice, or in the alternative, that he be granted an undefined stay of this case. Dkt. 18.

1 Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the circumstances under which an action may be dismissed. Plaintiff must seek leave of Court to dismiss this action because an answer has been filed. See Dkt. 7.

4 Here, plaintiff moves for dismissal the complaint without prejudice (Dkt. 18), and defendants do not oppose plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. 19). Accordingly, the Court recommends that plaintiff’s motion to dismiss be granted and that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice.

7 The Court recommends that plaintiff’s alternative request for an undefined stay be denied.

8 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report to file written objections. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of de novo review by the district judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and can result in a result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on September 13, 2019 as noted in the caption.

16 Dated this 22nd day of August, 2019.

A J. Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge