Hamilton et al v. National Collegiate Athletic Association et al

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LANCE HAMILTON CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 25-92-BAJ-RLB
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION
NOTICE
Please take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge’s Report has been filed with the
Clerk of the United States District Court.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have fourteen (14) days after being served
with the attached Report to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of
law and recommendations therein. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings,
conclusions, and recommendations within 14 days after being served will bar you, except upon
grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and
legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which have been accepted by the District Court.
ABSOLUTELY NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE
WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on February 9, 2026.
S
Case 3:25-cv-00092-BAJ-RLB Document 17 02/09/26 Page 1 of 3

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LANCE HAMILTON CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 25-92-BAJ-RLB
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw. (R. Doc 16).
On January 30, 2025, this action was filed by “H, Living on the Land” apparently on
behalf of his two sons, identified anonymously as John and Jim Doe, against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”). (R. Doc. 1).
On February 18, 2025, the district judge entered a Ruling and Order dismissing the
claims without prejudice and noting deficiencies in how the claims were brought, specifically the
lack of standing by “H, Living on the Land” apparently on behalf of his two sons. (R. Doc. 3).
The undersigned held a hearing on March 27, 2025, at which the brothers, Lance
Hamilton and Stan Hamilton, personally appeared as the actual pro se plaintiffs and provided
information to the Court about their respective claims. (R. Doc. 10).
The Court then ordered that the brothers’ matters be severed. (R. Doc. 13). Lance
Hamilton (“Plaintiff”) remained as the sole plaintiff in this action. The Court severed the action
brought by Stan Hamilton and transferred that action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana. See Hamilton v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 25-cv-
00399-BAJ-RLB.
Case 3:25-cv-00092-BAJ-RLB Document 17 02/09/26 Page 2 of 3

2
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On June 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint into the record, adding two
additional defendants: Southern University Law Center and the Southern University Systems. (R.
Doc. 14).
On October 27, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve the defendants within 90 days.
(R. Doc. 15). None of the Defendants have been served or made an appearance in this action.
On February 2, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Withdraw. (R. Doc. 16).
Plaintiff states that he “respectfully moves to withdraw the above-captioned action prior to
service or appearance by Defendants.” (R. Doc. 16 at 1). Plaintiff also submits a proposed order
seeking closure of this action. (R. Doc 16 at 7). The remainder of the motion details Plaintiff’s
reasons for bringing the instant lawsuit.
Plaintiff is entitled to dismiss this civil action, without court order, by filing “a notice of
dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). In addition, Plaintiff may request dismissal of this action by court
order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). The Court interprets the instant motion as seeking a court
order allowing for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2).
Having considered the record, the Court finds it appropriate to grant Plaintiff’s request
for a court order dismissing this action, and that such dismissal shall be without prejudice.
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw (R. Doc 16) be
GRANTED, and that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on February 9, 2026.
S
Case 3:25-cv-00092-BAJ-RLB Document 17 02/09/26 Page 3 of 3