Warren v. Trans Union LLC et al

MELVIN WARREN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Case No. 1:25-cv-557
Hopkins, J.
Bowman, M.J.
TRANSUNION, LLC., et al.,
Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This civil action is now before the Courton Plaintiff's motion forvoluntarydismissal
of this action without prejudice (Doc. 25), and the parties' responsive memoranda. (Doc.
27). 	For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's motion
be granted and that this action be dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act. 	Plaintiff is now seeking voluntary dismissal of this action without
prejudice. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a)(2) provides that, after an opposing party
has served an answeror motion for summary judgment, "an action may be dismissed at
the plaintiffs request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper."
Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is within the sound discretion of the court. 	Because
Defendants have already filed responses, this matter may not be dismissed without
prejudice pursuantto Rule 41(a)(2) except by court order. See Henderson v. Hall, No.
1:09cv2058, 	2010 	WL 	2572698, 	at 	*2 	(N.D. 	Ohio 	June 	4, 	2010) 	(Report 	&
Recommendation), adopted, 2010 WL 2572652 (N.D. Ohio June 21, 2010). Whetherthe
petitioner's request for dismissal without prejudice should be granted "is within the sound
Case: 1:25-cv-00557-JPH-SKB Doc #: 28 Filed: 12/29/25 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

discretion of the Court." See Martin v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst., No. 1:12cv458, 2014
WL 1271020, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 27, 2014) (Barrett, J.).
Here, dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. The case remains at a relatively
early stage, and Defendants will not suffer plain legal prejudice from dismissal at this
juncture. Notably, Defendants have not opposed the motion. 	Further, there is no
indication that Plaintiff seeks dismissal in bad faith or for purposes of undue delay. Noris
there any showing that Defendant(s) have expended substantial resources that would be
wasted 	by 	dismissal. 	Under these 	circumstances, 	dismissal 	without prejudice 	is
consistent with Rule 41(a)(2) and the interests of judicial economy.
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned herein RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs
Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (Doc. 25) be GRANTED, all pending
motions (Docs. 12, 18, 19, 20, 21) be DENIED as MOOT and this action be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court should be directed to CLOSE the case.
2
s/ Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Chief Magistrate Judge
Case: 1:25-cv-00557-JPH-SKB Doc #: 28 Filed: 12/29/25 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

MELVIN WARREN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Case No. 1:25-cv-557
Hopkins, J.
Bowman, M.J.
TRANSUNION, LLC., et al.,
Defendants.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to this Report & Recommendation ("R&R")within FOURTEEN (14)DAYS after
being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on
timely motion by either side for an extension of time. 	All objections shall specify the
portion(s) of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in
support of the objections. 	A party shall respond to an opponent's objections within
FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. 	Failure to make
objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. 	See Thomas
v. Am, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 {6th Cir. 1981).
3
Case: 1:25-cv-00557-JPH-SKB Doc #: 28 Filed: 12/29/25 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>