alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

DAVID DURHAM, Case No. 1:18-cv-91 

Plaintiff, Hopkins, J. 

 Litkovitz, M.J. 

 vs. 

DETECTIVE JERRY NIFFENEGGER, et al., ORDER

Defendants.

On December 6, 2023, the District Judge issued an Opinion and Order granting defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment, and the Clerk entered judgment in their favor. (Docs. 184, 185). 

Plaintiff has appealed these entries. (See Docs. 189, 190). This matter is before the Court on 

defendants’ Motion to Tax Costs (Doc. 186) and Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 187). The 

parties have filed a Joint Memorandum of Understanding, docketed as a response, stating their 

agreement to stay these motions pending the disposition of plaintiff’s appeal. (Doc. 191). 

“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 

control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 

counsel, and for litigants.” Gray v. Bush, 628 F.3d 779, 785 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Landis v. 

North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). Consistent with this authority, the parties’ 

agreement, and the interest of judicial economy, defendants’ Motion to Tax Costs (Doc. 186) and 

Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 187) are hereby STAYED pending the disposition of plaintiff's 

appeal. Within 30 days of the disposition of such appeal, plaintiffs shall respond to defendants’ 

motions, if warranted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: __________________ _______________________ 

Karen L. Litkovitz 

United States Magistrate Judge 

1/31/2024

Case: 1:18-cv-00091-JPH-KLL Doc #: 192 Filed: 01/31/24 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 3762
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

1

IN THE MATTER OF: 1

i CASE No.

THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE 1

WARRANTS, APPLICATIONS, PEN j CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

REGISTERS, AND NON- \ ELIZABETH A. PRESTON-DEAVERS

DISCLOSURE ORDERS IN THE |

CASES LISTED IN ATTACHMENT |

A

FILED UNDER SEAL

ORDER TO UNSEAL

Upon the Motion ofthe United States Attorney and for good cause shown, it is

ORDERED that the Search and Seizure Warrants, Applications, Pen Registers, and NonDisclosure Orders and related documents in the cases listed in Attachment A in the above-entitled

matter, be unsealed.

Case: 2:17-mj-00588-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/29/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 55
ATTACHMENT A:

2:17-l\/lJ-434 2:18-MJ-007 2:18-MJ-756 2:19-MJ-001 2:19-MJ-471

2:17-MJ-585 2;18-MJ-8 2:18-MJ-840 2;19-MJ-45 2:19-MJ-481

2;17-MJ-586 2:18-MJ-9 2:19-MJ-121 2:19-MJ-498

2:17-MJ-587 2:18-MJ-10 2:19-MJ-122 2:19-MJ-510

2:17-MJ-588 2:18-MJ-17 2:19-MJ-127 2:19-MJ-512

2:17-MJ-589 2;18-MJ-51 2:19-MJ-153 2:19-MJ-527

2:17-MJ-617 2:18-MJ-61 2:19-MJ-174 2:19-MJ-528

2:17-MJ-644 2:18-MJ-92 2:19-MJ-175 2:19-MJ-553

2:17-MJ-676 2:lS-MJ-205 2:19-MJ -191 2:19-MJ-560

2:17-MJ-677 2:18-MJ-213 2:19-MJ-255 2;19-MJ-561

2:17-MJ-678 2:18-MJ-232 2:19-MJ-265 2:19-MJ-562

2:17-MJ-679 2:18-MJ-326 2:19-MJ-266 2;19-MJ-563

2:17-MJ-696 2;18-MJ-355 2:19-MJ-272 2:19-MJ-564

2:17-MJ-713 2:18-MJ-379 2:19-MJ-273 2:19-MJ-570

2;17-MJ-714 2:18-MJ-397 2:19-MJ-276

2;17-MJ-715 2:18-MJ-398 2:19-MJ-290

2;17-MJ-747 2:18-MJ-404 2:19-MJ-291

2;17-MJ-758 2:18-MJ-411 2:19-MJ-320

2;17-MJ-759 2:18-MJ-429 2:19-MJ-348

2:17-MJ-761 2:18-MJ-434 2:19-MJ-349

2:17-MJ-762 2:18-MJ-460 2:19-MJ-379

2:17-MJ-782 2:18-MJ-498 2:19-MJ-414

2:17-MJ-791 2:18-MJ-512

2:18-MJ-515

2:18-MJ-532

2:19-MJ-460

Case: 2:17-mj-00588-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/29/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 56
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-1527V

Filed: November 5, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

DEANA KNOWLES,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

William E. Cochran, Jr., Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, P.C., Memphis, TN , for 

petitioner.

Linda Sara Renzi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Corcoran, Chief Special Master:

On October 3, 2018, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2

(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on 

September 19, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing 

Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

 

1

I intend to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This means the 

decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 

18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of 

which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified 

material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. Because this unpublished 

decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United 

States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 

3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services).

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

On November 4, 2019, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he

concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 

4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent concludes that petitioner’s alleged injury is 

consistent with SIRVA as defined on the Vaccine Injury Table. Id. at 3. Respondent 

further agrees that petitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than 

six months. Id.

In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
#### Ball *v.*Messmore.

5-916

289 S. W. 2d 183

Opinion delivered April 16, 1956.

*John B. Driver,*for appellant.

*W. J. Cotton,*for appellee.

G-bobge Rose Smith, J.

This is a suit by the ap-pellee to quiet his title to 170 acres of land. The appellants intervened and asked that they he permitted to show title in themselves to part' of a twenty-acre tract that was claimed in its entirety by the appellee. The suit became in substance a boundary line dispute and resulted in a decree fixing the boundary along an old fence line that crosses the tract. The appellants contend that the line should have been fixed along a branch that runs through the. tract.

The decree is in accordance with the weight of the evidence. Neither side established, or even attempted to establish, a perfect record title to the land. The chancellor, in rejecting the appellee’s assertion of title to the entire twenty-acre parcel, found that the appellants and their predecessors in title had been for more than seven years in adverse possession of that part of the tract lying south and east of the fence line. The decree accordingly quieted the appellants’ title to that portion of the land. The chancellor confirmed the appellee’s title *257to the unimproved portion lying outside the fence upon proof of tax payments for more than seven years under ■color of title. Ark. Stats. 1947, § 37-102. ¡v: i

In claiming more land than the chancellor awarded them the appellants rely upon the testimony of several witnesses who say that the branch has long been understood to be the line. This testimony may be true, but it falls short of establishing a record title, or adverse possession, or an agreed boundary line, or any other fact of substantive importance. It shows at most the existence of a general belief about the line, but of course such a belief could not have the effect of vesting or divesting the title to real property.

The appellants think the chancellor erred in allowing the appellee to use affidavits as proof, in spite of the fact that the appellants intervened and contested the case. Ark. Stats., § 34-1906. It is true that affidavits were attached to the complaint; but the trial was heard upon testimony adduced in open court, and there is nothing to indicate that the chancellor gave any weight to the affidavits in the record. In any event we try the case *de novo,*and without regard to the affidavits the decree is supported by the preponderance of the testimony.

A third contention is that equity does not have jurisdiction to quiet the title to land not in the plaintiff’s possession. The land outside the fence, however, either was in the plaintiff’s possession or was wild and unimproved, so that the case necessarily falls within the court’s jurisdiction. Ark. Stats., § 34-1901.

Affirmed.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

Meeting Day 1

September 24-25, 2008

El Camino Real Hotel

El Paso, Texas

AGENDA

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

8:00 A.M. Registration

8:30 Welcome and Introductions

Welcome: Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB

 Rafael DeLeón, Director, OCEM

 Lorena Cedeño-Zambrano, Acting GNEB Designated Federal Officer

Board Members, Attendee Self Introductions

8:50 Remembrance: Carlos Marín and Arturo Herrera

9:00 Regional Welcome

José Rodríguez, El Paso County Attorney

Anthony Cobos, County Judge

9:30 The El Paso Smelter Issue

Bob Currey, Center for Environmental Resource Management,

University of Texas at El Paso

10:15 Border Environmental Cooperation Commission: New Project Areas

Daniel Chacón-Anaya

General Manager of COCEF / BECC

11:00 John Cook, El Paso City Mayor

11:15 Regional Approach to Water Supply

Héctor González

El Paso Water Utilities
12:00 National Coordinators Meeting Update

Enrique Manzanilla

EPA Region 9

12:30 Public Comments

01:00 Lunch

02:00 GNEB 12th Report Working Meeting: “Innovation, Including Incentives, to 

Prevent/Reduce Pollution at the U.S.-Mexico Border”

05:30 Adjourn
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

Meeting Day 2

September 25, 2008

El Camino Real Hotel

El Paso, Texas

AGENDA

Thursday, September 25, 2008

7:40 A.M . Registration

8:00 Business Meeting Call to Order

8:10 Approval of Minutes

Washington, DC March 2008 & Calexico, CA June 2008 Meeting

Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB

8:30 Other Business:

OIG Border 2012 Report Discussion

Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB

The White House CEQ Update

Lorena Cedeño-Zambrano, Acting GNEB Designated Federal Officer

GNEB 2009 CY Schedule

Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB

9:00 GNEB 12th Report Working Meeting: “Innovation, Including Incentives, to 

Prevent/Reduce Pollution at the U.S.-Mexico Border”

Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB

12:30 Public Comments

1:00 Adjourn
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 00 74 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BRICE WILLIAM WILKE,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including October 8, 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 1 2020

09/01/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0074
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Southern District of Ohio

The Ohio State University

2:17-cv-229

SunFrog, LLC

SunFrog LLC

c/o Kirk Yodzevicis, Resident Agent

1782 O'Rourke Blvd.

Gaylord, MI 49735

Joseph R. Dreitler, Esq.

Dreitler True LLC

19 E. Kossuth St.

Columbus, Ohio 43206

Case: 2:17-cv-00229-MHW-EPD Doc #: 3 Filed: 03/21/17 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 68
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

u Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

2:17-cv-229

0.00

Case: 2:17-cv-00229-MHW-EPD Doc #: 3 Filed: 03/21/17 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 69
Exhibit 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of RDC  International,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Anthony  Cella,  Chief  Financial  Officer  (or the  equivalent  thereof) of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that,  to the best of my knowledge and
belief:

     (1) the Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) the information contained in the Repor fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


                                    /s/ Anthony Cella
                                    Anthony Cella
                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                    (or the equivalent thereof)
                                    February 19, 2003
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2409 In Re: JOHN A. ANDREWS, Debtor.

_________________________ JOHN A. ANDREWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and JOHN A. ANDREWS, II, Plaintiff, versus NATIONSBANK, N.A.; RIGGS NATIONAL BANK, Defendants, and RICHARD G. HALL, Trustee - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-1092-A, BK-92-14879-AT)2 Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 12, 1998 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne Gormly Travell, TUCKER, FLYER & LEWIS, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Richard G. Hall, Appellee Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing asmoot his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order approving settlement of a lawsuit that was pending in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. We have reviewed the record and the districtcourt’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Andrews v. Hall , Nos. CA-97-1092-A; BK-92-14879-AT (E.D. Va. Sept. 30, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4293 

To amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to 

maximize the efficiency in administering governmental functions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 11, 2009 

Mr. ARCURI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee 

on Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Works and Economic Development 

Act of 1965 to maximize the efficiency in administering 

governmental functions. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT. 

4 Section 207 of the Public Works and Economic De5 velopment Act of 1965(a) (42 U.S.C. 3147(a)(1)) is 

6 amended— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4293 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (1) by inserting ‘‘maximizing 

2 the efficiency in administering governmental func3 tions and’’ after ‘‘grants for’’; and 

4 (2) in paragraph (2)— 

5 (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (H) 

6 and (I) as subparagraphs (I) and (J), respec7 tively; and 

8 (B) by inserting after subparagraph (G) 

9 the following: 

10 ‘‘(H) developing and conducting or imple11 menting county or municipal government effi12 ciency assessments;’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1

                CERTIFICATION BY THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                       OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB  Reliant Home Warranty
Corporation  (the  Company) for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  Report),  I, Boyd
Soussana, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, herby certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, to the best of his/her knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

By:  /s/ Boyd Soussana
     ----------------------------------
           Boyd Soussana
           Chief Executive Officer

     August 14, 2006, 2006
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4621 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 11, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To protect the integrity of the constitutionally mandated 

United States census and prohibit deceptive mail practices that attempt to exploit the decennial census. 

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


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4621 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Prevent Deceptive Cen3 sus Look Alike Mailings Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR MAIL BEARING THE TERM 

5 ‘‘CENSUS’’ ON THE ENVELOPE OR OUTSIDE 

6 COVER OR WRAPPER. 

7 (a) MATTER SOLICITING PURCHASE OF A PRODUCT

8 OR SERVICE.—Section 3001(h) of title 39, United States 

9 Code, is amended— 

10 (1) by inserting, in the matter preceding para11 graph (1), ‘‘; or which bears the term ‘census’ on the 

12 envelope or outside cover or wrapper’’ after ‘‘such 

13 matter by the Federal Government’’; 

14 (2) in paragraph (2), by redesignating subpara15 graphs (A), (B), and (C) as clauses (i), (ii), and 

16 (iii), respectively; 

17 (3) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and 

18 (3) as subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively; 

19 (4) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘(h)’’; and 

20 (5) by adding at the end the following new 

21 paragraph: 

22 ‘‘(2) In the case of matter bearing the term ‘census’ 

23 on the envelope or outside cover or wrapper, in addition 

24 to satisfying one of the exceptions contained in paragraphs 

25 (1)(A), (1)(B), or (1)(C), such envelope or outside cover 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 4621 RFS 

1 or wrapper bears on its face an accurate return address 

2 including the name of the entity that sent such matter.’’. 

3 (b) MATTER SOLICITING INFORMATION OR CON4 TRIBUTION OF FUNDS.—Section 3001(i) of title 39, 

5 United States Code, is amended— 

6 (1) by inserting, in the matter preceding para7 graph (1), ‘‘; or which bears the term ‘census’ on the 

8 envelope or outside cover or wrapper’’ after ‘‘such 

9 matter by the Federal Government’’; 

10 (2) in paragraph (2), by redesignating subpara11 graphs (A), (B), and (C) as clauses (i), (ii), and 

12 (iii), respectively; 

13 (3) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and 

14 (3) as subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively; 

15 (4) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘(i)’’; and 

16 (5) by adding at the end the following new 

17 paragraph: 

18 ‘‘(2) In the case of matter bearing the term ‘census’ 

19 on the envelope or outside cover or wrapper, in addition 

20 to satisfying one of the exceptions contained in paragraphs 

21 (1)(A), (1)(B), or (1)(C), such envelope or outside cover 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
4 

HR 4621 RFS 

1 or wrapper bears on its face an accurate return address 

2 including the name of the entity that sent such matter.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 10, 

2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6162
ROBERT L. BROWN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MR. JARED BAKER, Psychologist; NURSE LASTER; C. PHIPPS; DR. MOISES E. QUINONES; KATHLEEN J. BASSETT, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:07-cv-00574-jlk-mfu) Submitted: July 8, 2008 Decided: July 31, 2008 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Robert L. Brown, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2000). Brown also appeals the court’s orders denying his motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Brown v. Baker , No. 7:07-cv-00574-jlk-mfu (W.D. Va. Jan. 3, 2008; Jan. 18, 2008; Feb. 7, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED