Dr. Lo was dismissed based on a procedural issue. The Court finds this case to be more like the Sykes case or and Fulgham [ v.AAA Cooper Transp. Co. , 134 So. 3d 807 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) ]. The Court disagrees with Methodist that Sykes does not apply.

Id. (citing Fulgham v. AAA Cooper Transp. Co., 134 So.3d 807, 809-10 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014)). The Court finds the reasoning from McDaniel to be well taken and, thus, declines to accept Peco's argument.

But that observation does not remedy the lack of a dismissal with prejudice or the type of indemnity issues J & J Timber discusses. See Fulgham v. AAA Cooper Transp. Co., 134 So. 3d 807 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (noting that the statute of limitations had expired as to any claim against the employee, but there was "no legal preclusion from litigating [the employee's] alleged negligence as it applies to [the employer's] liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior"). In the end, the Court declines to extend J & J Timber to a voluntary dismissal without prejudice.