alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lankford *v.*Cain.

Opinion delivered April 29, 1929.

*462
      *J. R. Long*and *W. D. Sivaim,*for appellant.

*A. T. Davies,*for appellee.

McHaney, J.

Appellant, a white woman, brought this action to recover from appellees, negro pawnbrokers, the value of one diamond which she alleged they took from her by substitution, a trick amounting to theft. There was a trial to a jury, which resulted in a verdict and judgment for appellees.

Complaint is made of the admission and refusal of certain testimony over appellant’s objections and exceptions. No sufficient abstract is made of the testimony for us to pass upon these questions intelligently. No abstract is made of the motion for a new trial, and we cannot tell, without exploring the record, whether these alleged errors were assigned therein.

Complaint is also made of the use of the word “ring” instead of “diamond” by the court in its instructions to the jury. This is the only error argued regarding the instructions, and it was such an error, if an error at all, as should have been met by a specific objection. True, this suit was for the value of a diamond stone, and not a “ring,” and if specific objection had been made, no doubt the court would have corrected his reference to the subject-matter. No such objection was made, and we do not think the jury could have been misled thereby. No objections or exceptions were made to the instructions, and no instructions were asked and refused.

As no error appears, the judgment must be affirmed. It is so ordered.
Aprill2, 2013 

SUBJECT: ESA for Miles City, Montana; Docket DOS-OST-1997-2605 

TO: Department of Transportation, Office of Secretary 

West Building Ground Floor W -12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington DC 20590; 3 

FROM: Mark K. Petersen 

18 2b 

You are very strongly encouraged to continue Essential Air Service to the Montana Communities of 

Miles City and Lewistown. The reduction in passengers in the last 2 years causing our subsidy per 

passenger to float above the·maximum target is not a function of a failing community or lack of demand 

but a consequence of poor service by Sliver Airlines. Our passenger numbers have dropped 75% (1000+ 

in 2010 to 300+ in 2012) in 2 years due to a change in airlines providing service. Do not penalize our 

community for a bad business model implemented by Silver Airlines. 

If you were going to visit your neighbors in the house next door would you drive your car? No you would 

not. That is the situation we are in with Silver Airlines. They want Miles City and surrounding 

community residents to fly to Billings (our neighbor community). It takes. more time to fly to Billings 

and catch another plane than it takes to drive to the airport.in Billings. In 2010 we could depart on a 

flight to Denver a 5:00am and make a connecting flight in Denver to arrive anywhere in the USA to 

make a same day meeting. 

We are a thriving community with many needs due to the diversity of our economy and the mounting 

impact of energy development. We need a functional airport, airlines and schedules. If we had all of 

these characteristics we would not have an EAS prohibited per passenger subsidy today. Our 

communities need functional air service as part of our economic lifeline and medical services for our 

citizens as we had shown in 2010. 

Thank you for considering our request to NOT enforce the Order ofShow Cause at this time and give the 

EAS task force time to work on this problem. We believe a solution to this problem can be found for 

communities in our EAS area. 

Sincerely yours, 

Mark Petersen 

Mark K Petersen, PhD 

· 95 Green Acres Dr., Miles City, MT 59301 

406-234-4098 and bearpausel@comcast.net
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      218,548
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,484,553
<ALLOWANCES>                                134,458
<INVENTORY>                                 455,770
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,539,734
<PP&E>                                      68,603,299
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,522,432
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              63,620,601
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,592,820
<BONDS>                                     0
<COMMON>                                    18,537
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                  8,156,861
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                63,620,601
<SALES>                                     20,977,143
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,977,143
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            21,321,148
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            (17,305)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          935,229
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,261,929)
<INCOME-TAX>                                (479,729)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (782,200)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   31,442
<NET-INCOME>                                (813,642)
<EPS-BASIC>                               (0.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (0.46)

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In the Matter of: REGENT AEROSPACE CORPORATION 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0852 

Served: September 17, 2015 

EXTENSION OF TIME 

Complainant Federal Aviation Administration filed its notice of appeal in this matter 

from the written initial decision issued by Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin on 

July 27, 2015. Under 14 C.P.R.§§ 13.233(c) and 13.2ll(e), parties must perfect their appeals by 

filing an appeal brief within 55 days of the date of the issuance of the initial decision. 

Complainant's appeal brief is due no later than September 21, 2015. 

By letter dated September 14, 2015, the agency attorney requested a 14-day extension of 

time for the FAA to file its appeal brief under 14 C.P.R.§ 13.233(c)(1).1 The agency attorney 

represented in this letter that Respondent, through its counsel, had agreed to the 14-day 

extension. 

Complainant's request for an extension of time in which to file its appeal brief is granted 

m1der 14 C.P.R. § 13.233(c)(l). Complainant's appeal brief is now due to be filed on or before 

October 5, 2015. 2 

MICHAEL P. HUERTA 

ADMINISTRATOR 

Federal Aviation Administration 

::;:~;&:~ Manager, Adjudication Branch 

1 The agency attomey also asked for an extension of time in another case involving Regent Aerospace 

Corporation, FAA-2013-0851. That extension oftime is granted in a separate order. 

2 The "mailing rule" (14 C.P.R. § 13.211(e)), which provides additional time after service by mail, does 

not apply to this extension. Thns, it does not extend the appeal briefs dne date beyond October 19,2015. 

3 Issued under authority delegated to the Chief Counsel and the Assistant Chief Com1sel for Litigation by 

Memorandum dated October 27, 1992, under 49 U.S.C. § 322(b) and 14 C.P.R.§ 13.202 (see 57 Fed. 

Reg. 58,280 (1992)) and redelegated by the Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation to the Manager, 

Adjudication Branch, by Memorandum dated An gust 6, 1993.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15



NationsBank of Texas, N.A. as Trustee
  for the Cross Timbers Royalty Trust:

We are aware that Cross Timbers Oil Company has incorporated by reference in its
Registration Statement No. 33-55784 on Form S-8 Cross Timbers Royalty Trust's
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1997, which includes our report dated
July 21, 1997, covering the unaudited interim financial information contained
therein. Pursuant to Regulation C of the Securities Act of 1933, that report is
not considered a part of the registration statement prepared or certified by our
firm or a report prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of
Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.



ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Fort Worth, Texas
August 6, 1997



                                                                              16
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

RENEE MILLER, 

Plaintiff, Case No.: 3:18-cv-233 

vs. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

(consent case)

Defendant.

ORDER: (1) APPROVING THE PARTIES’ JOINT STIPULATION FOR AN AWARD 

OF ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (“EAJA”) 

(DOC. 20); AND (2) AWARDING PLAINTIFF $2,300.00 IN EAJA FEES 

This Social Security disability benefits appeal is before the Court on the parties’ joint 

stipulation in which they agree that Plaintiff should be awarded attorney’s fees under the Equal 

Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, in the amount of $2,300.00. Doc. 20. Based 

upon the parties’ stipulation in which they present no dispute that all requirements are met for 

the reasonable award of EAJA fees, the Court: (1) APPROVES the parties’ joint stipulation (doc. 

20); and (2) GRANTS Plaintiff EAJA fees in the amount of $2,300.00. As no further matters 

remain pending for review, this case remains TERMINATED upon the Court’s docket. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: March 4, 2019 s/ Michael J. Newman 

Michael J. Newman

United States Magistrate Judge
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

Deborah S. Hunt 

Clerk

100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 

POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE 

CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3988 

Tel. (513) 564-7000 

www.ca6.uscourts.gov

 Filed: June 26, 2023 

Mr. Richard W. Nagel 

Office of the Clerk 

85 Marconi Boulevard 

Suite 121 

Columbus, OH 43215 

 Re: Case No. 21-3972/3974/3982/4070/4128, Garrett, et al v. The Ohio State University

Originating Case No. : 2:18-cv-00692 

Dear Clerk, 

 Enclosed is a copy of the mandate filed in these cases. 

 Sincerely yours, 

 

 s/Cathryn Lovely 

Opinions Deputy 

cc: Mr. David John Barthel 

 Ms. Sarah Bradshaw 

 Mr. Timothy Raymond Bricker 

 Mr. Michael Hiram Carpenter 

 Mr. Daniel Richard Karon 

 Mr. Konrad Kircher 

 Mr. J. C. Ratliff 

 Mr. Rocky Ratliff 

 Mr. Rex A. Sharp 

 Mr. Adam Ivan Strychaluk 

 Ms. Simina Vourlis 

 Ms. Larkin E. Walsh 

Enclosure 

 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 208 Filed: 06/27/23 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 1556 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

 

________________ 

 No: 21-3972/21-3974/21-3982/21-

4070/21-4128 

________________

 

 Filed: June 26, 2023 

BRIAN GARRETT [21-3972]; NICHOLAS NUTTER, et al. [21-3982] 

 Plaintiffs 

 and 

EDWARD GONZALES; JOHN ANTOGNOLI; KENT KILGORE; ROGER BEEDON; ADAM 

PLOUSE; DANIEL RITCHIE; MICHAEL SCHYCK; DOCTOR MARK CHRYSTAL; JOEL 

DAVIS; JOHN DOES, 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-15, 17, 19, 21-25, 27, 29-33, 35-46, 48, 50-51, 53, 56-59, 

61, 62, 64, 69, 75, 77, 85-86, and 88-92 individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated 

[21-3972] 

ROCKY RATLIFF [21-3974] 

ERIC SMITH; MARK COLEMAN; WILLIAM KNIGHT; JACK CAHILL; SCOTT 

OVERHOLT; ELMER LONG; RYAN HENRY; MICHAEL GLANE; CHRISTOPHER 

PERKINS; MICHAEL CALDWELL; THOMAS ROEHLIG; BRIAN ROSKOVICH; RICK 

MONGE; THOMAS LISY; ANASTACIO TITO VAZQUEZ, JR.; JOHN MACDONALD, JR.; 

MAROON MONDALEK; LEO DISABATO; PETER NATHANSON; JEFFREY LADROW; 

ANTHONY SENTIERI; JOHN DOE, 1-15, 17-19 [21-3982] 

MICHAEL ALF; GARY TILL; ALLEN NOVAKOWSKI; CHRIS ARMSTRONG; JOHN 

DOES, 93-97 and 99-101 individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated [21-4070] 

MICHAEL CANALES; JOHN DOE 20 [21-4128] 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants 

v. 

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 

 Defendant - Appellee 

 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 208 Filed: 06/27/23 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 1557 
MANDATE 

 Pursuant to the court's disposition that was filed 02/15/2023 the mandate for this case hereby 

issues today. 

 

COSTS: None 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 208 Filed: 06/27/23 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 1558
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

JAYCEE DEVELOPMENT, LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v. . Case No. 3:18-cv-255
WILBERFORCE UNIVERSITY, et JUDGE WALTER H. RICE
alis

Defendants.

DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING AS MOOT DEFENDANT THE
THIRD EPISCOPAL DISTRICT OF THE AFRICAN METHODIST
EPISCOPAL CHURCH’S MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. #8)

Given the filing of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, Doc. #12, the Court
OVERRULES AS MOOT Defendant The Third Episcopal District of the African
Methodist Episcopal Church’s Motion to Dismiss, Doc. #8, which addressed the

original Complaint.

Date: November 6, 2018 (a c

WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF COST PLUS, INC. FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JANUARY
31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                          27,434
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     56,606
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                87,177
<PP&E>                                          90,502
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,963
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 152,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,547
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            87
<OTHER-SE>                                      95,522
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   152,000
<SALES>                                        260,494
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               260,494
<CGS>                                          164,394
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  242,376
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,679
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,439
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,432
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,007
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,007
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.15
        

</TABLE>
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: 2:18-mj-00411-CMV Doc #: 13 Filed: 01/29/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 62
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: 2:18-mj-00411-CMV Doc #: 13 Filed: 01/29/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 63
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          24,463
<SECURITIES>                                     2,004
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,010
<ALLOWANCES>                                       732
<INVENTORY>                                        411
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,253
<PP&E>                                           3,701
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,929
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  39,556
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,814
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            67
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,675
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    39,556
<SALES>                                         18,745
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,745
<CGS>                                            2,537
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,759
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     8
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   173
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,096
<INCOME-TAX>                                       383
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                713
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       713
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
#### James JOHNSON v. STATE of Arkansas

692 S.W.2d 250

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered July 15, 1985

*Joel W. Price,*for appellant.

*Sieve Clark,*Att’y Gen., by: *Clint Miller,*Asst. Att’y Gen., for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellant, James Johnson, by his attorney, has filed for a rule on the clerk.

His attorney, Joel W. Price, admits that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on his part.

We find that such an error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is, good cause to grant the *474motion. See our Per Curiam opinion dated February 5,1979, In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964.

A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.
#### Roosevelt HAYES v. A.L. LOCKHART, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

86-10

706 S.W.2d 179

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered March 24, 1986

*Appellant,*pro se.

No response.

Per Curiam.

In this motion appellant, an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Correction, requests appointment of counsel to represent him in the appeal of the denial of a civil motion for declaratory judgment against the Director of the Department of Correction. He bases his motion for counsel on the unavailability of typewriters at the prison, which precludes his submitting a typed brief as required by our rules.

The motion is denied. The appeal is civil in nature, and there is no absolute right to counsel in a civil action. *Virgin*v. *420
      *Lockhart,*288 Ark. 92, 702 S.W.2d 9 (1986).

If the lack of a typewriter is hindering appellant’s access to this Court, he may seek permission to proceed *pro se*with a handwritten brief. As we said in *Glick*v. *Lockhart,*288 Ark. 417, 706 S.W.2d 178 (1986), which was also decided today, permission to file a handwritten brief will be granted upon proper motion if appellant makes a substantial showing that his suit has merit and that he is unable to submit a typed brief.

Motion denied.

Purtle, J., not participating.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

PETER NEWMAN, : Case No. 3:18-cv-252

 :

Plaintiff, : Judge Thomas M. Rose

 :

v. :

 :

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON, et al., :

 :

Defendants. :

______________________________________________________________________________

ENTRY AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 

7), GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 8), DISMISSING COMPLAINT

(DOC. 1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND TERMINATING CASE

______________________________________________________________________________

This case is before the Court on the Report & Recommendations (Doc. 7) entered by 

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington and the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) filed by Plaintiff Peter 

Newman. Magistrate Judge Ovington previously ordered Plaintiff to show cause, not later than 

January 7, 2019, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Order to 

Show Cause explained that Plaintiff had not returned to the Clerk of Court a summons and other 

forms necessary to effect timely service, and more than 90 days had passed without proof of 

service being entered in the record. Plaintiff failed to timely respond to the Order to Show Cause, 

but later indicated to the Court during a phone call that he intended to file a motion for extension of 

time to complete service. Plaintiff failed to file any such motion. As a result, Magistrate Judge 

Ovington entered the Report & Recommendations (Doc. 7), which recommends that Plaintiff’s 

Complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute and the case be terminated. Two days later, 

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a)(1)(A). 

Plaintiff apologizes for his failure to prosecute and requests a dismissal without prejudice. 
2

Plaintiff therefore does not object to termination of this case but requests that the Complaint’s 

dismissal be without prejudice.

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court made a de novo

review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court ADOPTS the Report & 

Recommendations (Doc. 7) and GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8), which the Court 

construes as a request that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly:

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and

2. This case is TERMINATED on the Court’s docket.

DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Monday, February 4, 2019. 

s/Thomas M. Rose

________________________________

THOMAS M. ROSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE