not be extinguished or circumscribed by adversary or court. There is not even a perfunctory order of court closing the file. Its alpha and omega was the doing of the plaintiff alone. 317 F.2d at 297. Accordingly, the district court may not attach any conditions to the dismissal. Williams v. Ezell, 531 F.2d 1261, 1264 (5th Cir.1976). After the notice of voluntary dismissal is filed, the district court loses jurisdiction over the case. Qureshi, 600 F.3d at 525. Further, this court has determined that Rule 41(a)(1)(A)® “means precisely what it says” by stating that only the filing of an answer or motion for summary judgment terminates the plaintiffs unilateral right to dismiss the action by notice. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 506 F.2d 914, 916 (5th Cir. 1975) (<HOLDING>); Carter v. United States, 547 F.2d 258, 259
holding that a motion for a preliminary injunction and a hearing on that motion were insufficient to prevent the plaintiff from dismissing by notice holding that court can consider inadmissible evidence in the context of a motion for preliminary injunction holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction holding that a motion for a  705 stay should be judged by the same standard as a motion for a preliminary injunction holding that the filing of notice without motion is insufficient