Lakhan v. Wale et al, No. 2:2010cv01971 - Document 43 (E.D. La. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER & REASONS that 42 Motion for Voluntary Dismissal filed by Lyndon Leigh Lakhan is granted and pla's claims are dismissed with prejudice; FURTHER ORDERED that 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Charles Wale, Jose Rel, Ed Howell is denied as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 7/8/2011.(lag, )

Download PDF
Lakhan v. Wale et al Doc. 43 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LYNDON LEIGH LAKHAN CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 10-1971-DEK CHARLES “CHIP” WALE, ET AL. ORDER AND REASONS Plaintiff, Lyndon Leigh Lakhan, filed this pro se and in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named as defendants Charles “Chip” Wale, Jose Rel, and Ed Howell. In this lawsuit, plaintiff asserted excessive force and false arrest/false imprisonment claims. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. Rec. Doc. 17. On July 7, 2011, plaintiff filed a document which the Court construes as a motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2). Rec. Doc. 42. In a subsequent telephone conference to discuss that motion, plaintiff confirmed that he wanted to cancel the upcoming trial and dismiss this lawsuit in its entirety. Plaintiff further confirmed that he understood the dismissal would be with prejudice.1 Defense counsel informed the Court that the defendants do not oppose plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss his lawsuit. Accordingly, 1 Under Rule 41(a)(2), an order of voluntary dismissal is entered “on terms that the court considers proper.” In the instant case, the Court finds that dismissal with prejudice is warranted in light of the considerable time and effort the defendants have been forced to expend defending this lawsuit and preparing for trial. Dockets.Justia.com IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss this lawsuit is GRANTED and plaintiff’s claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment, Rec. Doc. 40, is DENIED AS MOOT. New Orleans, Louisiana, this eighth day of July, 2011. _______________________________________ DANIEL E. KNOWLES, III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.