Wallace Capel, Jr. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On July 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which the court considers a motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the court concludes that the motion is due to be granted. Furthermore, the court concludes that this case should be dismissed without prejudice. See Rule 41(a)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), at the insistence of Plaintiff, is committed to the sound discretion of this court, and absent some plain legal prejudice to Defendants, denial of the dismissal constitutes an abuse of this court's discretion. McCants v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 781 F.2d 855 (11th Cir. 1986). Simple litigation costs, inconvenience to Defendants, and the prospect of a second or subsequent lawsuit do not constitute clear legal prejudice. Id; see also Durham v. Florida E. Coast Ry. Co., 385 F.2d 366 (5th Cir. 1967).
The court has carefully reviewed the file in this case and has determined that even if Defendants were given an opportunity to file a response to Plaintiff's motion to dismiss, they would not be able to demonstrate the existence of clear legal prejudice. Consequently, the court concludes that this case should be dismissed without prejudice on the motion of Plaintiff.
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 23) be GRANTED.
2. This case be DISMISSED without prejudice.
3. No costs be taxed herein.
It is further
ORDERED that on or before August 15, 2016, the parties may file objections. Any objections filed must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the parties object. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of factual findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall "waive the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions" except upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).
Done, this 1st day of August 2016.
/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE