Sealey v. The United States of America et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
REGINALD MORRIS SEALEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA
and
COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA,
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Civil No. 8:25-01454-CDA
* 	* 	*
MEMORANDUM OPINION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on 	Motion to
Reopen Case. ECFs 39, 41. No defendant has responded. No hearing is necessary. Loc.
R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2025). For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the Motion.
On May 5, 2025, Plaintiff Sealey filed suit against the United States of America and
the Commonwealth of Virginia. ECF 1. The complaint alleged violations of the Federal
Torts Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §2671, et seq., and 28 U.S.C. §§1346(b)(1). 	Id. 	at ¶ 3. Plaintiff
sought relief in the form of damages. 	Id. 	at 7.
Only the Commonwealth of Virginia has responded to the suit, filing a Motion to
Dismiss on June 6, 2025. ECF 12. On June 25, 2025, Judge Theodore D. Chuang held a
case management conference. ECF 26. Following the conference, Judge Chuang issued
noting that
ECF 26. 	Subsequently, the
Case 8:25-cv-01454-CDA Document 42 Filed 11/10/25 Page 1 of 3

2
parties consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge, and the Court
reassigned the case to the undersigned. ECF 30.
On July 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed, and the Court approved, a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
ECF 37, 38. On July 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reopen.1 	ECF 39. In the Motion,
Plaintiff requests
Id. 	He avers that if he knew the United States was successfully
served and filed an opposition to dismissal, he would not have noticed voluntary
dismissal. ECF 39-1. However,
As noted above, nothing on the docket shows any filed opposition to dismissal, and Judge
Chuang 	indicates that the United States accepted service. ECF 28. Thus, the Court
treats the pending motion like any other motion to reopen following a voluntary
dismissal.
action without a court order by filing . . . a notice of dismissal before the opposing party
As judges of this Court,
facing similar requests in a similar posture, have explained:
Because a dismissal under this rule is effected without court order, 	there
is no final order or judgment from which a party may seek relief under Rule
60(b), and the district court lacks jurisdiction to grant a Rule 60(b) motion.
Ajiwojo v. Cottrell, 245 Fed. Appx. 563, 565 (8th Cir. 2007); 	see also 	Netwiq
v. Georgia Pac. Corp., 375 F.3d 1009, 1010 (10th Cir. 2004); 	Marex Titanic,
Inc. v. Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel, 2 F.3d 544, 545 (4th Cir. 1993)
(district court may not vacate a Rule 41(a) (1) notice of dismissal without
prejudice); 	Thorp v. Scarne, 599 F.2d 1169, 1176 (2d Cir. 1979) ( 	notices of
1 	Plaintiff incorrectly filed the Motion to Reopen without the required proposed
order. ECF 40. However, Plaintiff remedied his mistake by filing the missing proposed
Case 8:25-cv-01454-CDA Document 42 Filed 11/10/25 Page 2 of 3

3
dismissal filed in conformance with the explicit requirements of Rule
41(a)(1)(i) are not subject to vacatur. 	). Accordingly, Plaintiff may not
reopen the instant case but must instead commence a new action. 	See
Adams v. Lever Bros. Co., 874 F.2d 393, 395 (7th Cir. 1989) ( 	The only
differences between dismissal followed by reinstatement and a Rule 41(a)(1)
dismissal followed by a re-filing are that the latter requires a new docket fee
and 	must 	satisfy 	the 	statute 	of 	limitations. 	).
Jiggetts v. Hickey, No. 22-02412-JRR, 2023 WL 9101319, at *1 (D. Md. Dec. 4, 2023)
(quoting 	Great American Ins. Co. of New York v. Day, No. 12-2295-DKC, 2013 WL
254563, at *1 (D. Md. Jan. 22, 2013)). 	Accordingly, because Plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed this action, it shall not be reopened. 	Subject to any applicable statute of
limitations, Plaintiff must commence a new action if he wishes to pursue the dismissed
claims. 	See id.; 	Elgen Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Mac Arthur Co., No. 23-4924-JST, 2024 WL
3875789, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2024).
Therefore,
Date: November 10, 2025 	/s/
Charles D. Austin
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 8:25-cv-01454-CDA Document 42 Filed 11/10/25 Page 3 of 3