the dismissal would be without prejudice). See also Dunham v. Fullerton, 258 P.3d 701, 704 (Wyo. 2011) (affirming Rule 25 dismissal for untimely substitution: “dismissal without prejudice was proper—it was not an adjudication on the merits, and the statute of limitations has not run”). Still other courts have reasoned that a trial judge dismissing an action per Rule 25 is invested with the same level of discretion as one acting pursuant to Rule 41. Therefore, a court may properly dismiss claims without prejudice under Rule 25 if it finds that, under the circumstances, the plaintiff has not acted with extreme dereliction and the defendant has not suffered acute prejudice by reason of the delay. See, e.g., Keating v. Levitan Mfg. Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6839 at n.1 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (<HOLDING>); Bessent v. Nat’l Housing Partnership, 2008
holding that in the circumstances presented viz plaintiffs failure to prosecute for months following suggestion of death but with no discernible prejudice to defendant dismissal without prejudice was appropriate sanction holding that plaintiffs failure to respond to argument warranted dismissal with prejudice holding that de facto dismissal without prejudice was appropriate where a plaintiffs certificate failed to state with specificity that a defendant was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injury holding that absent extraordinary circumstances a failure to comply with the statute requires a dismissal with prejudice holding that proper remedy for failure to exhaust is dismissal of the claim without prejudice