Piel v. Runion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION JONATHAN I. PIEL PLAINTIFF v. Civil No. 2:21-cv-02210-PKH-MEF SHERIFF HOBE RUNION and EDDIE SMITH DEFENDANTS MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This is a civil rights action filed pro se by Plaintiff, Jonathan I. Piel, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Before the Court is a Motion for Dismissal filed by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 41). Defendants have filed a Response in which they join in Plaintiff’s request to dismiss this case. (ECF No. 42). Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1) and (3) (2011), the Honorable P. K. Holmes, III, Senior United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation. I. BACKROUND Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Northwest Arkansas Work Release Center in Springdale, Arkansas. His claims in this action arise from his incarceration at the Sebastian County Detention Center (“SCDC”) in 2021. Plaintiff filed his Complaint on December 28, 2021. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on March 21, 2022. (ECF No. 12). Additional defendants were named in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Id. These Defendants were dismissed by Order dated October 4, 2022. (ECF No. 37). On October 12, 2022, the Court entered an Initial Scheduling Order setting discovery deadlines at February 9, 2023, and deadlines for motions for summary judgement at March 10, 2023. (ECF No. 38). On November 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Dismissal. (ECF No. 41). In this Motion, Plaintiff requests the Court dismiss the case as he “no longer wishes to bring suit against Sheriff Runion or the other Defendant in this case[,] and therefore[,] will no longer pursue prosecution in this case.” Id. Defendants filed a Response on November 30, 2022, in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 42). Defendants request the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion and dismiss his Amended Complaint. Id. II. LEGAL STANDARD The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for motions seeking voluntary dismissal: Except 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. If a defendant has pleaded a counterclaim before being served with the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, the action may be dismissed over the defendant’s objection only if the counterclaim can remain pending for independent adjudication. Unless the order states otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph (2) is without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). It is within the Court’s sound discretion to grant or deny a plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss a lawsuit. Beavers v. Bretherick, 227 F. App’x 518, 520 (8th Cir. 2007). In making its decision, the Court should consider the following factors: “(1) whether the plaintiff has presented a proper explanation for the desire to dismiss; (2) whether the defendant has expended considerable effort and expense in preparing for trial; (3) whether the plaintiff exhibited ‘excessive delay and lack of diligence’ in prosecuting the case; and (4) whether the defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment.” Id. (citing Paulucci v. City of Duluth, 826 F.2d 780, 783 (8th Cir. 1987)). III. DISCUSSION Here, the Court’s consideration is straightforward as the Defendants have agreed to the voluntary dismissal of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Defendants do not allege any wasted effort or expense in preparing for trial; Plaintiff has not exhibited any excessive delay or lack of diligence in prosecuting this matter; and Defendants had not yet filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, the Court finds that dismissal should be granted as it is unopposed. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for Dismissal (ECF No. 41) be GRANTED and the claims against all Defendants be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court. DATED this 27th day of February 2023. /s/ HON. MARK E. FORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE