(PC) Miller v. Sherman ( 2022 )

nee en nee I OE OE OE ee 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 | ROBERT J. MILLER, Case No. 1:21-cv-01208-JLT-EPG (PC) 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 9 v. 10 | STUART SHERMAN, et al., (ECF No. 36) 1] Defendants. 12 13 On March 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed what the Court construes as a notice voluntarily 14 | dismissing this action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 | 41(a)(1)(A)@). (ECF No. 36). Therefore, this action has been terminated.' Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 | 41(a)(1)(A)Q); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the 17 | Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate all pending motions and deadlines and close this case. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 | Dated: _March 7, 2022 [Je hey — 1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 ' The Court notes that the dismissal is automatically without prejudice, unless Plaintiff previously dismissed a federal or state court action that is based on, or includes, the same claims at issue in the present case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B) (‘Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice. But if the 27 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.”). Thus, although Plaintiffs case is voluntarily dismissed, it is 28 unclear, and the Court does not decide, whether the voluntary dismissal is with or without prejudice.