alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 4:20-cv-00552-RH-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 1 of 19
Case 4:20-cv-00552-RH-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 2 of 19
Case 4:20-cv-00552-RH-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 3 of 19
Case 4:20-cv-00552-RH-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 4 of 19
Case 4:20-cv-00552-RH-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 5 of 19
Case 4:20-cv-00552-RH-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 6 of 19
Case 4:20-cv-00552-RH-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 7 of 19
Case 4:20-cv-00552-RH-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 8 of 19
Case 4:20-cv-00552-RH-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 9 of 19
Case 4:20-cv-00552-RH-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 10 of 19
Case 4:20-cv-00552-RH-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 11 of 19
Case 4:20-cv-00552-RH-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 12 of 19
Case 4:20-cv-00552-RH-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 13 of 19
Case 4:20-cv-00552-RH-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 14 of 19
Case 4:20-cv-00552-RH-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 15 of 19
Case 4:20-cv-00552-RH-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 16 of 19
Case 4:20-cv-00552-RH-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 17 of 19
Case 4:20-cv-00552-RH-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 18 of 19
Case 4:20-cv-00552-RH-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 19 of 19
# 52.242-6 [Reserved]

**Parent topic:**52.242 [Reserved]
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 28, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134759 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

ANGELA R. ROSA and JOHN B. ROSA, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134759 

 COA: 268651 

Benzie CC: 05-007272-NO 

GARY HENNING,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 31, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t1217 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 28, 2007 

 Clerk
II 

Calendar No. 481 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2690 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

8801 Sudley Road in Manassas, Virginia, as the ‘‘Harry J. Parrish 

Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 2, 2006 

Mr. ALLEN (for himself and Mr. WARNER) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

JUNE 22, 2006 

Reported by Ms. COLLINS, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 8801 Sudley Road in Manassas, Virginia, as 

the ‘‘Harry J. Parrish Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. HARRY J. PARRISH POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 8801 Sudley Road, Manassas, 
2 

•S 2690 RS

1 Virginia, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Harry 

2 J. Parrish Post Office’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the Harry J. Parrish Post 

7 Office. 

Calendar No. 481 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2690 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States PostOffice’’. nassas, Virginia, as the ‘‘Harry J. Parrish Post al Service located at 8801 Sudley Road in MaJUNE 22, 2006 

Reported without amendment
#### In the Matter of Radu Herescu for Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice before the Courts of the State of New York.

— Motion to be admitted *pro hac vice*before the courts of the State of New York denied. Concur— Kupferman, J. Appellant. Birns, Fein, Markewich and Lupiano, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES AND

INVESTMENTS INC

VS CASE NO. 5:02-cv-00080-SPM

BAGGETT BROTHERS FARM INC,

LAZORTH BAGGETT, EVELYN

BAGGETT, BILLY BAGGETT, ADA

MAE BAGGETT, BOBBY GEORGE

BAGGETT

JUDGMENT

This action came before the Court with the Honorable Stephan P. Mickle

presiding. The issues have been heard and a decision has been rendered.

Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff AGRICULTURAL SERVICES AND

INVESTMENTS INC against all defendants, BAGGETT BROTHERS FARM INC,

LAZORTH BAGGETT, EVELYN BAGGETT, BILLY BAGGETT, ADA MAE BAGGETT,

BOBBY GEORGE BAGGETT, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $106,914.47,

which represents $100,535.75 for attorney fees from September 1, 2001 through July 5,

2005, as shown in document 139-2, and $6,378.72 for the bill of costs doc. 117

 January 18, 2006

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/ Debi Boone

DATE Deputy Clerk: Debi Boone

Case 5:02-cv-00080-SPM-AK Document 157 Filed 01/18/06 Page 1 of 1
§ 3201.62 Bath products. ( a ) *Definition.* Personal hygiene products including bar soaps, liquids, or gels that are referred to as body washes, body shampoos, or cleansing lotions, but excluding products marketed as hand cleaners and/or hand sanitizers.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The Federal preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 61 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than July 23, 2012, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased bath products. By that date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for items to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased bath products.
[76 FR 43817, July 22, 2011]
42.1303 Stop-work orders.

(a) Stop-work orders may be used, when appropriate, in any negotiated fixed-price or costreimbursement supply, research and development, or service contract if work stoppage may be

required for reasons such as advancement in the state-of-the-art, production or engineering

breakthroughs, or realignment of programs.

(b) Generally, a stop-work order will be issued only if it is advisable to suspend work pending a

decision by the Government and a supplemental agreement providing for the suspension is not

feasible. Issuance of a stop-work order shall be approved at a level higher than the contracting

officer. Stop-work orders shall not be used in place of a termination notice after a decision to

terminate has been made.

(c) Stop-work orders should include-

(1) A description of the work to be suspended;

(2) Instructions concerning the contractor’s issuance of further orders for materials or services;

(3) Guidance to the contractor on action to be taken on any subcontracts; and

(4) Other suggestions to the contractor for minimizing costs.

(d) Promptly after issuing the stop-work order, the contracting officer should discuss the stop-work

order with the contractor and modify the order, if necessary, in light of the discussion.

(e) As soon as feasible after a stop-work order is issued, but before its expiration, the contracting

officer shall take appropriate action to-

(1) Terminate the contract;

(2) Cancel the stop-work order (any cancellation of a stop-work order shall be subject to the same

approvals as were required for its issuance); or

(3) Extend the period of the stop-work order if it is necessary and if the contractor agrees (any

extension of the stop-work order shall be by a supplemental agreement).

Parent topic: Subpart 42.13 - Suspension of Work, Stop-Work Orders, and Government Delay of

Work
# L_2014354EN.01008901.xml

| 11.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 354/89 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 354/89

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision 2014/844/EU, Euratom of 26 November 2014 authorising Malta to use certain approximate estimates for the calculation of the VAT own resources base

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 343 of 28 November 2014
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 343 of 28 November 2014

On page 33, in the preamble:

for:

‘Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89 of 29 May 1989 on the definitive uniform arrangements for the collection of own resources accruing from value added tax (1), and in particular the second indent of Article 6(3) thereof,

Whereas:’

;

read:

‘Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89 of 29 May 1989 on the definitive uniform arrangements for the collection of own resources accruing from value added tax (1), and in particular the second indent of Article 6(3) thereof,

After consulting the Advisory Committee on Own Resources,

Whereas:’

.

---
52.247-46 Shipping Point(s) Used in

Evaluation of F.o.b. Origin Offers.

As prescribed in 47.305-3 (b)(4)(ii), insert the following provision in f.o.b. origin solicitations when

price evaluation for shipments from various shipping points is contemplated:

Shipping Point(s) Used in Evaluation of F.o.b. Origin Offers (Apr 1984)

(a) If more than one shipping point or plant is designated by the offeror and the offeror fails to

indicate the quantity per shipping point or plant before bid opening, the Government will evaluate

the offer on the basis of delivery of the entire quantity from the point or plant where cost of

transportation is most favorable to the Government.

(b) If the offeror, before bid opening (or the closing date specified for receipt of offers) fails to

indicate any shipping point or plant, the Government will evaluate the offer on the basis of delivery

from the plant at which the contract will be performed, as indicated in the offer. If no plant is

indicated in the offer, the offer will be evaluated on the basis of delivery from the Contractor’s

business address indicated in the offer.

(c) If the offeror uses a shipping point other than that which has been used by the Government as a

basis for the evaluation of offers, any increase of transportation costs shall be borne by the

Contractor and any savings shall revert to the Government.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.247 [Reserved]
Exhibit 10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT #2 
 TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT #2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made
and entered into as of the 8th day of May, 2009 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Integral Systems, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), and William M. Bambarger (the “Executive”). 
 A. The Company and Executive previously entered into that certain Employment Agreement effective as of October 1, 2007 and amended effective
April 30, 2008 (collectively, the “Agreement”). Capitalized terms in this Amendment #2 and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given them in the Agreement. 
 B. The Company and Executive wish to amend and modify certain provisions in the Agreement as provided herein and effective as of the Effective Date
hereof, while leaving unchanged all other provisions of the Agreement. 
 Agreement 
 A new Section 4.7 is added to the Agreement to read as follows, the remainder of the Agreement is renumbered accordingly, and all cross-references
are renumbered accordingly: 
 Any unvested portion of any stock options to acquire the Company’s common stock (“Options”) or
any equity award made to the Executive shall immediately vest and become exercisable in full: (i) if a change in control (as defined in the Company’s standard form of award agreement for stock options under the Company’s 2008 Stock
Incentive Plan) occurs while Executive is an employee of the Company, to the extent the Options and/or other awards are not assumed by the acquiror or successor entity (as applicable) in connection with such change in control, or (ii) if the
Options and/or other awards are assumed by the acquiror or successor entity (as applicable) in connection with such change in control and Executive’s employment or services with the Company is terminated by the Company without Cause or by
Executive for Good Reason upon or within twelve (12) months following the change in control. 
 Except as otherwise set forth in this
Agreement, all terms and provisions of the Agreement remain unchanged and in full force and effect. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Amendment #2 as of the Effective Date.

  

									
	INTEGRAL SYSTEMS, INC.	 		 	WILLIAM M. BAMBARGER
					
	By:	 	/s/ John B. Higginbotham	 		 	By:	 	/s/ William M. Bambarger
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:03cr33-SPM

ANTHONY BLYTHWOOD,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER DIRECTING GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant Blythwood’s Motion for

Clarification (doc. 61) and letter dated March 17, 2006 (doc. 62 ). Upon

consideration, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Government shall file a written

response on or before April 14, 2006. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of April, 2006.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cr-00033-RH-CAS Document 63 Filed 04/03/06 Page 1 of 1
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CR. NO. 2:06cr169-WKW

)

CECILLO PACACHE, et al., )

ORDER

For good cause, it is 

ORDERED that the pretrial conference previously scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on

September 28, 2007, be and hereby is rescheduled to 3:00 p.m. on September 28, 2007,

in courtroom 5-B, Frank M. Johnson, Jr. United States Courthouse Complex, One Church

Street, Montgomery, Alabama.

DONE, this 24th day of September, 2007.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 314 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 1 of 1
###### Editorial Note on Part 57

#### Editorial Note:

1. At 63 FR 69969, Dec. 17, 1998, part 57 was added by duplicating portions of part 59. At 63 FR 72353, Dec. 31, 1998, part 59 was redesignated as part 590 of 9 CFR.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 57 appear at 63 FR 69971, Dec. 17, 1998.

#### § 57.120 Financial interest of inspectors.

An inspector shall not inspect any product in which the inspector is financially interested.

[69 FR 57167, Sept. 24, 2004]
§ 652.26 Certification renewal. ( a ) NRCS certifications are in effect for a time period specified by NRCS in the Certification Agreement, not to exceed 3 years and automatically expire unless they are renewed for an additional time period in accordance with this section.
( b ) A technical service provider may request renewal of an NRCS certification by: ( 1 ) Submitting a complete certification renewal application to NRCS or through a private sector entity, a public agency, or a recommending organization to NRCS at least 60 days prior to expiration of the current certification;
( 2 ) Providing verification on the renewal form that the requirements of this part are met; and
( 3 ) Agreeing to abide by the terms and conditions of a Certification Agreement.
( c ) All certification renewals are in effect for a time period specified by NRCS in the Certification Agreement, not to exceed three years and before expiration, may be renewed for subsequent time period in accordance with this section.
#### § 58.921 Concentration.

Concentrating by evaporation shall be accomplished with a minimum of chemical change in the product. The equipment and systems used shall in no way contaminate or adversely affect the desirability of the finished product.
#### § 70.24 Financial interest of graders.

Graders shall not render service on any product in which they are financially interested.

[71 FR 42013, July 24, 2006]
§ 51.3050 U.S. No. 1. “U.S. No. 1” consists of avocados of similar varietal characteristics which are mature but not overripe, well formed, clean, well colored, well trimmed and which are free from decay, anthracnose, and freezing injury and are free from damage caused by bruises, cuts or other skin breaks, pulled stems, russeting or similar discoloration, scars or scab, sunburn, sunscald or sprayburn, cercospora spot, other disease, insects, or mechanical or other means. ( a ) *Tolerances.* In order to allow for variations incident to proper grading and handling, not more than a total of 10 percent, by count, of the avocados in any lot may fail to meet the requirements of this grade: *Provided,* That not more than one-half of this amount, or 5 percent, shall be allowed for avocados affected by decay or anthracnose, including therein not more than 1 percent for avocados affected by decay. (See §§ 51.3055 and 51.3056.)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Yoo hat. ala0 givan na sutihox lnsoroMtion rel8tiva 

to this tmttvr a~ l%llon~: 
0Qen RQ,h?vEy driving al.ls euik~ was plaom3 ln 

the City Jail at T%sylor until thr Amrift otntld 

mavey hla to the Jail in wor6etQwa; mn not 

tried in the Sustioe Court in Taylor, bra t 

tq C~e.?ri;otwn for trial in the Coul?ty Cow "%h i

.?le?aU guilty and pa.ld a Fina of fil4.00, being 

fine end oneta whhout the arilcvge going and retuP&llng by the ?hf+?irfl The %tmLff '886 netfried 

by Phoao by t&o PatM.rum Zhat tbvy b&l plsrdl 

tiirr.SallttTa.ylor fsr hlmti oormoy to Oeergetown, ther@‘ora 4fd sot have a Gourt order or 

proerrr to oarrg the U~~fendaat frorc Taylor to 

ueo~otma. 

*The County pays the Cltp 0s Taylor ~200.00 

par MUK ror the WI or atty nwibar OS oells IS 

uiekoa the primmar~ antilooanyedto the 8a4.X 

at the B ounty Soat whlah ie @eorgetowa. sama 

wmthta only oaa dl will be mod, agaIn IB my 

be several, heuetor the ganmml eustan with tim 

0Sfioiala in charge la to plaeor the County Ipriaoaera ia the ja$l with tha City priaimero, that 

im, not 8*gtegat* t&m in ogeoial eallr Ue~rignateu to the County. 

". . . . 

"5. Jar eagh ooamitmnt or rslaese; me bollar, 

*. l . r 
Hanorablo li. 8. Iiodgea, Pago ) 

“9. For oonvo~ A ~~l~t2ncr aftor ooavletloa 

to the oowniy JAI& ror AAohniln, golmg aod oeriry 

by t&m nearest pxaotloable PoutE 6~ orivato aamo~-’ 

anee, taa oentia ~$10, or 

oae-half aenta a m&lo. 

. . . . 

'll. &ax eaoh &lo ho - - maybe 0ospo110d tow&* 

attaohfng witneso, owon mall 4x10~ha.U oenttlr 

TEl l.n e%soutiIig arlmlna1 QPoE888 and 8uElmoQyo~ 

tP8vellng in thr 88~~1~~ of ~~8~88 not othwwlr(, 

BrarJdeQ for, the uuref WIOQ asdona-blfo~ak 

for emoh die go& mnd raturofrg. xi two 0~) mro 

Artlolo lull& V. A* c. 0, P., pxovla.8 that tw 

lbm of 05~814 ahallbe bamd for a pprportw¶ a~llrieo uhioh 

wa r x topor t lo ma o4 OP ~P A l rvleo ft?rwhlohsafn i8em 

pPa8sly p5vldeu iy 1RW. 

twat the fcGtat ctntce with rsfemnc* tc your 

immc.d q~m?So.n tbu defsndaot ua& arrested by Btntr Ri&uay 

Paatralnwn for a county a5wt n&ttduwuaer end w8a placed in 

jai2 at Taylor. ?ou stcts tdwt tirs St-to zli5hwey Fetro1a.n 

reqacrsted the sheriff' by t4le~kxw to take the defmtdant to 

th4 Qbulef jell !%c Csor@Jttma rcr tr5a1 in iha oo'un3p 4ourt. 

It also sppsarr thrnt this transgort~tfon ocourrod prior to 

the defetMaht*a exw5etion. 3eatfnn 9 of .‘.rticile 1065, V. A. 

0. a. P., supxe, wblah @LItme tha sheriff 01' czoI'atsbl4 tan 

apply beo4usr usher th4 tarts ntabttd tha ekorfif had no w&m 

rsnt OF other le~sf. grooesa -he txerispartod the pri~onar 
.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

RHONDA FLEMING,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:20cv545–WS/MJF

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

and WARDEN ERICA STRONG,

Defendants.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (ECF

No. 172) dated December 27, 2022. The magistrate judge recommends that

Rhonda Fleming’s motion for preliminary injunction be denied. Fleming has filed

objections (ECF No. 176) to the report and recommendation. The undersigned has

considered those objections but nonetheless finds that Fleming’s motion for

preliminary injunction (ECF No. 162) must be denied.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 172) is 

Case 4:20-cv-00545-WS-MJF Document 180 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

ADOPTED and incorporated into this order by reference.

2. Rhonda Fleming’s motion (ECF No. 162) for preliminary injunction is

DENIED.

3. The clerk shall return the case to the magistrate judge for further

proceedings.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of January , 2023.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00545-WS-MJF Document 180 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2
52.219-11 Special 8(a) Contract Conditions.

As prescribed in 19.811-3(a), insert the following clause:

Special 8(a) Contract Conditions (Jan 2017)

The Small Business Administration (SBA) agrees to the following:

(a) To furnish the supplies or services set forth in this contract according to the specifications and

the terms and conditions hereof by subcontracting with an eligible concern pursuant to the

provisions of section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, as amended (15 U.S.C.637(a)).

(b) That in the event SBA does not award a subcontract for all or a part of the work hereunder, this

contract may be terminated either in whole or in part without cost to either party.

(c) Except for novation agreements, delegate to the _________ [insert name of contracting agency] the

responsibility for administering the subcontract to be awarded hereunder with complete authority to

take any action on behalf of the Government under the terms and conditions of the subcontract;

provided, however, that the _________ [insert name of contracting agency] shall give advance notice

to the SBA before it issues a final notice terminating the right of a subcontractor to proceed with

further performance, either in whole or in part, under the subcontract for default or for the

convenience of the Government.

(d) That payments to be made under any subcontract awarded under this contract will be made

directly to the subcontractor by the ___________ [insert name of contracting agency].

(e) That the subcontractor awarded a subcontract hereunder shall have the right of appeal from

decisions of the Contracting Officer cognizable under the "Disputes" clause of said subcontract.

(f) To notify the _________ [insert name of contracting agency] Contracting Officer immediately upon

notification by the subcontractor that the owner or owners upon whom 8(a) eligibility was based

plan to relinquish ownership or control of the concern.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.219 [Reserved]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

LAVARSKI MONTEZ SHEFFIELD,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-224-TKW/MJF 

PARKER POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

/

O R D E R

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 18). No objections were filed. Upon due consideration of 

the Report and Recommendation and the case file, the Court agrees with the 

magistrate judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee and failure to comply with court orders.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is DISMISSED for failure to pay the filing fee and failure to

comply with court orders.

3. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.

4. The Clerk shall close the case file.

Case 5:20-cv-00224-TKW-MJF Document 19 Filed 04/26/21 Page 1 of 2
2

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of April, 2021.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00224-TKW-MJF Document 19 Filed 04/26/21 Page 2 of 2