course. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). 2 . The "Amendment by Interlineation” stated, in part: "Due to defendants' stated intent to continue contesting their violation of Baltimore City Code Article 4, § 3-1(1), Shilling will withdraw this statutory basis for Count VIII (Age Discrimination) of his Amended Complaint and instead substitute 29 USCS (sic) § 623 as the statutory basis for his age discrimination claim.” (See Docket No. 30.) It then provided the language of the revised Count VIII. (See id.) 3 . Although Plaintiff did not state in his motion whether he was seeking dismissal with or without prejudice, his later filings clarify that he is willing to dismiss his claim with prejudice. (See Docket No. 52, at 3.) 4 . See Whitfield v. Federal Crop Ins. Corp., 557 F.2d 413, 414 (4th Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>); Bahari v. Countrywide Home Loans, 2005 WL
holding that where concurrent jurisdiction exists claim may be removed unless congress states otherwise recognizing there can be concurrent proximate causes of accident holding that federal jurisdiction over rico claims is concurrent and not exclusive holding that federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over  1983 claims recognizing that the states have a cognizableinterest in whether congress may direct or otherwise motivate the states to regulate in a particular field or a particular way