22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T476,MEMORANDUM DuShawn Thomas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment granting plaintiff Entrepreneur Media, Inc.’s motion for voluntary dismissal of Thomas under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) from its trademark infringement action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion. Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94 , 96 (9th Cir. 1996), We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting Entrepreneur Media, Inc.’s motion for voluntary dismissal because Thomas failed to identify any “plain legal prejudice” that she suffered as a result of the dismissal. See id. (factors for evaluating motion for voluntary dismissal). Because we affirm on the basis of plaintiffs motion for voluntary dismissal of Thomas, we do not consider Thomas’ contentions concerning the merits of her counterclaims. We reject as without merit Thomas’ contentions that the motion was granted based on Entrepreneur Media, Inc.’s lack of candor. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T4ad,

MEMORANDUM

DuShawn Thomas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment granting plaintiff Entrepreneur Media, Inc.’s motion for voluntary dismissal of Thomas under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) from its trademark infringement action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion. Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94 , 96 (9th Cir. 1996), We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting Entrepreneur Media, Inc.’s motion for voluntary dismissal because Thomas failed to identify any “plain legal prejudice” that she suffered as a result of the dismissal. See id. (factors for evaluating motion for voluntary dismissal).

Because we affirm on the basis of plaintiffs motion for voluntary dismissal of Thomas, we do not consider Thomas’ contentions concerning the merits of her counterclaims.

We reject as without merit Thomas’ contentions that the motion was granted based on Entrepreneur Media, Inc.’s lack of candor.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.