United States District Court, D. Maryland
May 6, 2014
RONNIE WIMBUSH #360-137 Plaintiff
SGT. ISER SGT. CAPLE LT. WILT CPL. FRIEND ST. ZIAS LIBRARIAN HAMMOND CASE MANAGER RODERICK WARDEN FRANK BISHOP Case MANAGER SUPERVISOR B. CASSIDY Case MANAGER SUPERVISOR S. SHOCKEY Case MANAGER SUPERVISOR M. BONNER Case MANAGER HERBOLD. P.A. QUINTA LUM R.N. JENNIFER R.N. THERESA WEXFORD Defendants
JAMES K. BREDAR, District Judge.
Plaintiff moves to dismiss this action without prejudice, pending upcoming improvements to the prison library which may help him better prepare his litigation. ECF No. 6. In determining whether to grant a motion for dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), a court should consider the following factors: "(1) the opposing party's effort and expense in preparing for trial; (2) excessive delay or lack of diligence on the part of the movant; (3) insufficient explanation of the need for a dismissal; and (4) the present stage of litigation." Wilson v. Eli Lilly & Co., 222 F.R.D. 99, 100 (D. Md. 2004) (quoting Teck Gen. P'ship v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 28 F.Supp.2d 989, 991 (E.D. Va. 1998)). Typically, a motion to voluntarily dismiss a claim will be granted in the absence of "plain legal prejudice" to the other party. Ellett Bros., Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 275 F.3d 384, 388 (4th Cir. 2001). Indeed, the purpose of Rule 41(a)(2) is to freely allow voluntary dismissals "unless the parties will be unfairly prejudiced." Davis v. USX Corp., 819 F.2d 1270, 1273 (4th Cir. 1987).
None of the defendants will suffer substantial prejudice if this action is dismissed without prejudice. Based on the foregoing, the court shall dismiss this case without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2). A separate order will issue.