Opinion
Civil Action 4:22-CV-02038
03-30-2023
CHARLES TALBERT., Plaintiff, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE CORP., et al., Defendants.
MARIANI, D.J.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Background
Plaintiff Charles Talbert commenced this action on December 22, 2022, purportedly under Section 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and alleges Defendants violated his due process and equal protection rights when they denied him additional relief funds under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“Cares”) Act. (Doc. 1, at 1-7). On March 27, 2023, Talbert filed with the Court a “Praecipe to Dismiss case with prejudice.” (Doc. 19; Doc. 20, at 1).
II. Discussion
The Court has an obligation to liberally construe pro se pleadings and other submissions. See, e.g., Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 244-46 (3d Cir. 2013). While Talbert did not move to withdraw his claim pursuant to any particular statutory provision or other applicable authority, the unambiguous language of his March 27, 2023, submissions indicate that he seeks to voluntarily dismiss this action in accordance with Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 19; Doc. 20).
Rule 41(a) “allows a plaintiff who complies with its terms to dismiss an action voluntarily and without court intervention.” Manze v. State Farm Ins. Co., 817 F.2d 1062, 1065 (3d Cir. 1987). Specifically, Rule 41(a) provides, in relevant part:
[T]he 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....Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice. But if the plaintiff previously dismissed any federal- or state-court action based on or including the same claim, a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), (B).
“This right of the plaintiff is ‘unfettered'.... A proper notice deprives the district court of jurisdiction to decide the merits of the case.” In re Bath & Kitchen Fixtures Antitrust Litig., 535 F.3d 161, 165-66 (3d Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). Moreover, “the notice results in dismissal without prejudice (unless it states otherwise), as long as the plaintiff has never dismissed an action based on or including the same claim in a prior case.” In re Bath & Kitchen Fixtures, 535 F.3d at 165. The effect of filing a Rule 41(a)(1) notice of voluntary dismissal before service of an answer or a motion for summary judgment is “automatic: the defendant does not file a response, and no order of the district court is needed to end the action.” In re Bath & Kitchen Fixtures, 535 F.3d at 165.
In applying Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) to the matter sub judice, the undersigned finds that Tabert's March 27, 2023, submission sufficiently operates as a notice of voluntary dismissal of this action, as he filed the notice before Defendants served an answer or filed a motion for summary judgment. Furthermore, this notice results in a dismissal with prejudice as Talbert's submission requests this case be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 19, at 1); Accordingly, Talbert's Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of voluntary dismissal is “self-effectuating” and thus acts to terminate the action.
III. Recommendation
Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. Talbert's March 27, 2023, submission (Doc. 19; Doc. 20) be CONSTRUED as a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i);
2. This action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE at the request of Talbert pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1);
3. Talbert's pending motions to appoint counsel and motion for sanctions and expenses for (Doc. 2; Doc. 6; Doc. 10; Doc. 13) be DENIED AS MOOT; and
4. The Clerk of the Court be directed to CLOSE this case.
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned has entered the foregoing Report and Recommendation dated March 30, 2023. Any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Rule 72.3, which provides:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.