KNIGHT v. WILLIAMS

AIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION WILLIAM JAMES KNIGHT, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 5:23-cv-00369-TES-CHW Warden JOE WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants. ORDER On March 5, 2024, the Court issued its Order [Doc. 23] adopting the United States Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation of Dismissal [Doc. 21], and it dismissed this case without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). [Doc. 23, pp. 2–3]. However, on March 8, 2024, the Court received Plaintiff William James Knight’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 25] dated February 28, 2024. [Doc. 25, p. 2]. In his dismissal motion, Plaintiff states that “the situation has improved to the extent required” and that he “no longer wishes to pursue this case.” [Id.]. In accordance with Smith v. Williams, the Court treats Plaintiff’s dismissal motion as a “self-executing notice of dismissal under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 41.” 67 F.4th 1139, 1140 (11th Cir. 2023). Rule 41(a)(1) “entitles a plaintiff to voluntarily ‘dismiss an action without a court order by filing . . . a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)). This notice is “effective immediately upon filing”1 and deprives the Court of jurisdiction. Smith, 67 F.4th at 1140–41 (first quoting Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272, 1277 (11th Cir. 2012); and then quoting Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Devine, 998 F.3d 1258, 1265 (11th Cir. 2021)). Given that Plaintiff moved to dismiss his case six days before the Court’s entry of Judgment [Doc. 24], the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to VACATE that Judgment as well as the Court’s previous Order dismissing this case under Rule 41(b). The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 25], and it further DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to TERMINATE the United States Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation of Dismissal [Doc. 21] filed on February 12, 2024, as moot, and re-renter judgment accordingly. SO ORDERED, this 8th day of March, 2024. S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 “Under the ‘prison mailbox rule,’ a pro se prisoner’s court filing is deemed filed on the date it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing.” Daker v. Comm’r, Ga. Dep’t of Corrs., 820 F.3d 1278, 1286 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287 , 1290 n.2 (11th Cir. 2009)). “Absent evidence to the contrary,” we “assume that [the prisoner’s filing] was delivered to prison authorities the day he signed it.” Daker, 820 F.3d at 1286 (quoting Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11th Cir. 2001)).