Whether the district court erred in dismissing the petitioner's case without prejudice

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Din THE OPPossing Paenes berdoit’ BY Never Fihag wm Respone to tHe PEtifionee. O2iganal Comolmwt (4% amesioco 2) Sip THE Digtecr Couct Fmil tro File A Aon“ Ansuledt D GEAUET Mud. EME A FED Qe. nil VeQut2é >) AwLA wie Matter Disnusceo ylitHootT Pre udicé ba 1) THE PeETiTion ez potion To P2-0PEN CASE 7 4) sid THe SPONDENT S DeEfKUl REFOCE, THE Di smissa b) HAS THe DeTTion ge SHovtn Dili G@ence Ta Settle thls Wines 1) Ung THE Lowint Cover Phounye DANY AYGOEMENT, O@ CONTESTED The Pethonse. Conieliint Bt THe RESPONDENTS _ 8B) Dw THe PEeTITIoneK File Request for Default mAb “Jo ngementt In wh Tronely ANE A) Dio THE PeTitionee File Adeguarve Ano CermsonnBlé wwloa's TS Ce-open Beroce THE SEPT & 2014 GROER sno THENAPTER. \o Hae “TRE RES Po NOING Parnes TER AASER OK Repheo Te PETITIONGK. \ronT s Oe. melasce Gi oegven ve Ces, OnE | il 10 “THE 4)-S. DsteicT Covukt Cle ACEEO To THE fact oF MatTtee. tt . WW t HE OPPoscimG Parties nevex file a Response fea| 97, 0 etree wm THE PeTinos er _\2) Dio tHE | Bucs EAU Ta Stow 6 Genomes DisPote gs Te THE Ma Ter tn] | ACTS