DATE: May 28, 1992
CASE NO. 91-ERA-00054


IN THE MATTER OF

DAVID L. LATSHAW,

          COMPLAINANT,

v.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,

RESPONDENT .

           
BEFORE: THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                          FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL
                                      
    Before me for review is the Recommended Order of
Dismissal (R.O.) issued by the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) on April 27, 1992, in this case arising under the
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (ERA), 42
U.S.C.  5851 (1988).  The ALJ recommends dismissal of the
case without prejudice based on the Stipulation of Voluntary
Dismissal submitted by the parties.  The ALJ notes that both
parties are proceeding with the advice of counsel and that
both expressly agree to dismissal with each party paying its
own costs and legal expenses.  Additionally, the ALJ ordered
that this dismissal is subject to the rulings from his April
3, 1992, Order on Respondent's Motion for Partial Summary
judgment.
    I agree with the ALJ's conclusion that the
complaints in this case should be dismissed pursuant to
Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. 1/  See Kleiman v. Florida
Power and Light Co., Case. No. 91-ERA-00050,
Sec. Final Order of Dismissal, Feb. 21, l992.  The
parties have 
[PAGE 2]
expressly chosen to have the complaints dismissed
"without prejudice, notwithstanding Admlnistrative Law
Judge Kichuk's Order on Respondent's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment."  I interpret this request as one for
unconditional dismissal, without regard for the ALJIs
rulings on the motion.  Thus, the ALJ's rulings from
the April 3, 1992, Order on Respondent's Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment are without force or effect,
should not have been included in the R.O., and are not
a condition of this dismissal.
    Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), the complaints in
this case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
    SO ORDERED.

                            LYNN MARTIN
                           Secretary of Labor                
         


Washington, D. C.

1/  This case arose from Complainant's September 5, 1991, request
for a hearing regarding two complaints -- one filed on December 5,
1990, and another filed on May 31, 1991.