Maskell v. Wagnon

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
ADAM MASKELL 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No.1:24-cv-01024-SOH-BAB
CINDY WAGNON
Court Clerk, Bradley County 	DEFENDANT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action filed pro se by Plaintiff, Adam Maskell, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss Case filed by Plaintiff. ECF No. 13. Defendant, Cindy
Wagnon, has filed a Response in which states she has no objection to Plaintiff’s request to
voluntarily dismiss this case without prejudice. 	ECF No. 14. 	Pursuant to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2011), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge,
referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation.
I. 	BACKROUND
Plaintiff is currently a resident of Clarksville, Arkansas. His claims in this action arise from
alleged difficulties he had with obtaining documents from Defendant for use in ongoing litigation
involving Plaintiff. He filed his Complaint on March 29, 2024. ECF No. 1. He filed a Supplement
to the Complaint on April 17, 2024. ECF No. 5. Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint on
May 28, 2024. ECF No. 10. On August 15, 2024, the Court entered an Initial Scheduling Order
directing the parties to conduct a Rule 26(f) Conference on or before 9/11/2024. The order also set
discovery and motions for summary judgment deadlines, with a trial date of July 7, 2025. ECF No.
11.
On August 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Dismiss Case. ECF No. 13. In
Case 1:24-cv-01024-SOH Document 15 Filed 08/28/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
this Motion, Plaintiff requests the Court dismiss the case as the parties have resolved many of the
issues relating to the case and “in the interest of justice this lawsuit needs to be dismissed”. ECF
No. 13. Defendant filed a Response on August 26, 2024, in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to
Dismiss. 	ECF No. 14. 	Defendant requests the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion and dismiss his
Complaint. Id.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for motions seeking voluntary dismissal:
Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request
only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper. If a defendant has pleaded a
counterclaim before being served with the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, the action may be
dismissed over the defendant’s objection only if the counterclaim can remain pending for
independent adjudication. 	Unless the order states otherwise, a dismissal under this
paragraph (2) is without prejudice.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).
It is within the Court’s sound discretion to grant or deny a plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily
dismiss a lawsuit. Beavers v. Bretherick, 227 F. App’x 518, 520 (8th Cir. 2007). In making its
decision, the Court should consider the following factors: “(1) whether the plaintiff has presented
a proper explanation for the desire to dismiss; (2) whether the defendant has expended considerable
effort and expense in preparing for trial; (3) whether the plaintiff exhibited ‘excessive delay and
lack of diligence’ in prosecuting the case; and (4) whether the defendant has filed a motion for
summary judgment.” Id. (citing Paulucci v. City of Duluth, 826 F.2d 780, 783 (8th Cir. 1987)).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Here, the Court’s consideration is straightforward as Defendant has agreed to the voluntary
dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint. 	Defendant does not allege any wasted effort or expense in
preparing for trial; Plaintiff has not exhibited any excessive delay or lack of diligence in
Case 1:24-cv-01024-SOH Document 15 Filed 08/28/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
prosecuting this matter; and Defendant has not yet filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
Accordingly, the Court finds dismissal should be granted as it is unopposed.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, it is recommended Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Case (ECF
No. 13) be GRANTED and the claims against Defendant be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation
in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 	The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
DATED this 28th day of August 2024.
s/ Barry A. Bryant_____
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-01024-SOH Document 15 Filed 08/28/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>