WORLDWEST LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,
Ms. Sieverding claims on appeal that her dismissal was not voluntary because she stated in her motion that she was moving to dismiss the suit under duress of jail. While it is true that Ms. Sieverding's motion states that she is moving to dismiss under duress of jail, that does not change the fact that she herself filed the motion and asked the court to dismiss the suit. The district court then granted the requested relief. Because the district court was acting on Ms. Sieverding's own request to dismiss the suit without prejudice, she may not now appeal the district court's decision to grant the requested relief. See Coffey v. Whirlpool Corp., 591 F.2d 618, 620 (10th Cir. 1979) ("[W]here the dismissal is upon motion of the plaintiffs themselves, as here, we will not permit those plaintiffs to appeal, saying that the court should not have granted their own motion."). The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. All outstanding motions are DENIED.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
*. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.