From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cherry v. the Village of Navarre

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Jan 14, 2002
Case No. 5:00CV3192 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 14, 2002)

Opinion

Case No. 5:00CV3192

January 14, 2002


MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER


Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Marginal Entry Order Denying Leave to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.

On December 26, 2000, Plaintiff filed a complaint (ECF No. 1) against Defendants The Village of Navarre and Mayor Robert L. Benson alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and a state anti-discrimination statute. On March 12, 2001, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Federal Civil Rule 41(a)(b). (ECF No. 6). On the same day, the Court entered an order dismissing the case without prejudice. (ECF No. 7).

On December 12, 2001, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8). On the same day, the Court entered a marginal order denying Plaintiff's motion. (ECF No. 9). On December 27, 2002, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Marginal Entry Order Denying Leave to File Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 10).

The Court cannot permit Plaintiff to amend his complaint because there is no longer a pending action. When a party voluntarily dismisses his case it is as if the action had never been filed. See, e.g., Sandstrom v. ChemLawn Corp., 904 F.2d 83, 86 (1st Cir. 1990) ("[A] voluntary dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a) wipes the slate clean, making any future lawsuit based on the same claim an entirely new lawsuit unrelated to the earlier (dismissed) action."); Rosenthal v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 945 F. Supp. 1412, 1416 (D. Col. 1996) ("A voluntary dismissal without prejudice leaves the situation as if the action had never been filed."). Consequently, the only way that Plaintiff may reassert or amend the claims raised in his initial complaint would be to file an entirely new complaint within the appropriate statute of limitations. For this reason, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Marginal Entry Order Denying Leave to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10) is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Cherry v. the Village of Navarre

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Jan 14, 2002
Case No. 5:00CV3192 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 14, 2002)
Case details for

Cherry v. the Village of Navarre

Case Details

Full title:Vivian Lee Cherry, Jr., Plaintiff, v. The Village of Navarre, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Jan 14, 2002

Citations

Case No. 5:00CV3192 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 14, 2002)