Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): facts submitted on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court determines that Plaintiffs claim for declaratory relief may be resolved as a matter of law. “[District courts are widely acknowledged to possess the power to enter summary judgments sua sponte, so long as the losing party was on notice that she had to come forward with all of her evidence.” Atkins v. Salazar, 677 F.3d 667, 678 (5th Cir.2011) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)). Because Defendant North Bay moved for summary judgment as to its counterclaim and dismissal of Plaintiffs claim for declaratory relief, the parties were on notice to present arguments relating to both claims. See Apache Corp. v. W & T Offshore, Inc., 626 F.3d 789, 798 (5th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). In Luig’s complaint, “Plaintiff requests a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the defendant waived any claim of error by both failing to object at trial and affirmatively agreeing to a limited closure (B) holding that defendant waived any objection to the accuracy of the presentence report by failing to object after having been given ample opportunity to do so (C) holding that dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim should generally be without prejudice but if the plaintiff has been given an opportunity amend his complaint and fails to do so the dismissal may be with prejudice (D) holding that because the plaintiff had not perfected service within 120 days of filing the complaint the complaint was subject to mandatory dismissal (E) holding plaintiff had ample notice and opportunity to object to the scope of relief prayed for because defendant affirmatively requested dismissal of the complaint as a whole
Output (English): holding that because the plaintiff had not perfected service within 120 days of filing the complaint the complaint was subject to mandatory dismissal