Opinion
Civil Action 1:23-16
04-26-2023
BRIAN A. NELSON, Plaintiff, v. C.O. CALTAGARONE, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PATRICIA L DODGE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that the motion to reopen (ECF No. 6) filed by Plaintiff be denied.
II. Report
On January 23, 2023, Plaintiff Brian A. Nelson submitted a Complaint along with a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1). It could not be processed, however, due to its failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, statutory requirements and/or the Court's Local Rules and/or practices. Therefore, a deficiency order was entered and the case was administratively closed pending resolution of these matters (ECF No. 2).
On February 17, 2023, the Court received some of the missing documents, although Nelson still failed to submit his inmate accounting statement. Before any further action could be taken, Nelson submitted a notice of voluntary dismissal on February 22, 2023, stating that “I would no longer like to persue [sic] this case” and that he may or may not “get back to it at another time.” (ECF No. 5.)
As set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), “the plaintiff may 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.” As noted by the Court of Appeals, “[b]ecause a dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) does not require a court order or approval, we have held that “[t]he entry of such a stipulation of dismissal is effective automatically.” State Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Cnty. of Camden, 824 F.3d 399, 406 (3d Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Thus, by operation of law, this action was dismissed upon the docketing of Plaintiff's notice that he no longer wished to pursue it.
While the Court of Appeals was addressing Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), there is no substantive difference between that provision and Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) with respect to voluntary dismissal of an action without the need for a court order.
On March 22, 2023, Nelson filed a motion to reopen the case, stating that “I'm ready to continue with my civil case.” (ECF No. 6.) Because he voluntarily dismissed his action, however, the Court cannot reopen it.
Nevertheless, the Federal Rules further provide that, unless the notice states otherwise, “the dismissal is without prejudice.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(B). That is, the dismissal does not preclude Nelson from commencing a new civil action with the same claims and defendants, or indeed, from pursuing other claims not made in the dismissed action. See Welty v. Donkewicz, 2022 WL 4072522, at *2 (W.D. Pa. June 22, 2022) (citing Baxter v. Atlantic Care Main Pomona Hosp., 2015 WL 715012, at *1 (D.N.J. Feb. 19, 2015)), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 4018319 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 2, 2022).
Therefore, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's motion to reopen (ECF No. 6) be denied.
If Plaintiff seeks to challenge this Report and Recommendation, he must seek review by the district judge by filing objections by May 15, 2023. Failure to file timely objections will waive the right of appeal.