alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 6:23-cv-00411

George A. Johnson, Jr., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

G. Allen,

Defendant.

ORDER 

Plaintiffs George A. Johnson, Jr., and Paul Jeffrey Connall, proceeding pro se and seeking in forma pauperis status, filed this lawsuit 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. The case was referred to 

United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love. Doc. 3.

On October 4, 2023, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that plaintiffs’ lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice for

failure to comply with an order of the court. Doc. 6. Twelve days 

later, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that plaintiff Connall be denied leave to proceed as a pauper and that his claims 

be dismissed with prejudice for, in part, his willful deception in an 

effort to avoid paying a filing fee. Doc. 8 at 4. The magistrate judge 

further recommended that plaintiff Johnson’s claims be dismissed 

with prejudice because, even if he exists,1 he cannot assert claims 

based on alleged violations of Connall’s rights. Id. Copies of these

reports were sent to plaintiffs at their respective last-known addresses. To date, plaintiffs have neither filed objections nor otherwise communicated with the court. The docket reflects that mail 

sent to plaintiffs was returned to the court as “undeliverable.” Docs. 

9, 10.

When there have been no timely objections to a magistrate 

judge’s report and recommendation, the court reviews it only for 

1 Mail sent to plaintiff Johnson at the address provided in the complaint was returned with a notation that “George A. Johnston has never lived at this address.” 

Doc. 5.

Case 6:23-cv-00411-JCB-JDL Document 11 Filed 12/19/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 34
- 2 -

clear error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 

1420 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Having reviewed the magistrate 

judge’s reports, and being satisfied that they contain no clear error, 

the court accepts their findings and recommendations. Plaintiff

Johnson’s claims are dismissed with prejudice because he cannot assert claims based on violations of the rights of others. Plaintiff Connall’s claims are dismissed with prejudice for his willful deception 

and failure to comply with an order of the court. All pending motions 

are denied as moot.

So ordered by the court on December 19, 2023.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge

Case 6:23-cv-00411-JCB-JDL Document 11 Filed 12/19/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 35
1

The Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3668

___________

Roy Hoggard, II, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Mildred Dale, Sgt., Cummins Unit, * Eastern District of Arkansas.

ADC; John Doe, Assistant Director, *

Arkansas Department of Correction, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: July 7, 2006 

Filed: July 12, 2006 

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas state prisoner Roy Hoggard appeals following the district court’s1

adverse grant of summary judgment and its denial of several post-judgment motions

in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude

dismissal of the complaint was proper for the reasons explained by the district court.
-2-

We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the

post-judgment motions. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. 47A(a).

______________________________
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 30284]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10657]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: May 18, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
May 11, 2022, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 742 to Competitive Product List. 
Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2022-59, CP2022-
64.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2022-10657 Filed 5-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

JOEL BELL §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23cv96

BRYAN DOBBS, ET AL. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Joel Bell, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled lawsuit. This matter was

referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Amended Order

for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge

for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

 Procedural Background

On March 29, 2023, the court entered an order directing plaintiff to either pay the filibng fee

or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis accompanied by a statementshowing deposits into his

inmate trust account during the preceding six month period. Plaintiff was given 20 days to comply

with the court’s order. Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the order on April 4, 2023. The time for

complying with the order has expired. However, plaintiff has not complied with the court’s order

or otherwise contacted the court. 

Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for

failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030,

1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “This authority [under Rule 41(b)] flows from the court's inherent power to

control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.” Boudwin v.

Graystone Insurance Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co.,

370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962)).

By failing to comply with the order described above, plaintiff has failed to diligently

prosecute this lawsuit. As a result, this case should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Case 1:23-cv-00096-MJT-ZJH Document 5 Filed 05/01/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 9
Recommendation

This lawsuit should be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Objections

Objections must be (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3) served and filed within 14 days after

being served with a copy of this report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72(b).

A party’s failure to object bars that party from (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district

judge of proposed findings and recommendations, Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th

Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of unobjected-to factual

findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, Douglass v. United Serv. Auto. Ass’n.,

79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

2

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 1st day of May, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00096-MJT-ZJH Document 5 Filed 05/01/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 10
**Exhibit 32**
   **CERTIFICATION
        of CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER and CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of TurboChef Technologies,
        Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
        James
        K. Price as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James A. Cochran,
        as
        Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certify, pursuant to
        18
        U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of their knowledge:
  (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 results of operations of the Company.
  Date:    March 7,
                  2006
              
              By:
              /s/  JAMES
                  K. PRICE
                
                James
                  K Price
                *Chief
                  Executive Officer*Date:    March 7,
                  2006
              
              By:
              /s/  JAMES
                  A. COCHRAN
                James A. Cochran
                *Chief
                  Financial Officer*
  This
        certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
        the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
        Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
   See
        also the certifications pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
        of 2002, which are included in this annual report on Form 10-K.
Javier AMADOR-FLORES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5747.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Briand WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, et al.

No. 18-6338.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

JEFF S. AKHTAR

 Plaintiff

VS.

MOHAMMAD ALI

 Defendant

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-00233

 JUDGE MICHAEL J. TRUNCALE

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Before the Court is the Parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice. [Dkt. 15]. The 

Plaintiff is seeking a dismissal without prejudice as to all claims asserted or which could have been 

asserted in this matter against Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

It is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and the 

Parties shall bear their own attorney’s fees and costs.

It is further ORDERED that all Court dates and deadlines are hereby VACATED, and all 

other pending motions filed herein are DENIED AS MOOT.

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 28th day of August, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00233-MJT Document 16 Filed 08/28/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 87
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 211 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.211

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
   the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

                                 An Act

 
 To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 920 West Riverside Avenue in Spokane, Washington, as the ``Thomas S. 
Foley United States Courthouse'', and the plaza at the south entrance of 
     such building and courthouse as the ``Walter F. Horan Plaza''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal building and United States courthouse 
located at 920 West Riverside Avenue in Spokane, Washington, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Thomas S. Foley United States 
Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building and 
United States courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 
to be a reference to the ``Thomas S. Foley United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF PLAZA.

    (a) Designation.--The plaza located at the south entrance of the 
Federal building and United States courthouse referred to in section 
1(a) shall be known and designated as the ``Walter F. Horan Plaza''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the plaza referred to in 
subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Walter F. 
Horan Plaza''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
```
 
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 02/21/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      141,386
COMMITMENTS
  35,173   20,712   19,612   69,391   76,257  124,176  116,581   17,210   24,805

CHANGES FROM 02/14/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -1,996)
  -1,060    3,576     -849      803   -2,975   -1,106     -248     -890   -1,748

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    24.9     14.6     13.9     49.1     53.9     87.8     82.5     12.2     17.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      155)
      40       35       39       60       58      122      116
```

----

Updated February 24, 2012
```
  
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 09/25/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       43,613
COMMITMENTS
   9,195    1,065    1,369   22,261   30,963   32,825   33,398   10,788   10,215

CHANGES FROM 09/18/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      1,672)
     450      252      272      850    1,362    1,572    1,885      100     -213

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    21.1      2.4      3.1     51.0     71.0     75.3     76.6     24.7     23.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       52)
      16        3        7       27       19       45       28
```

----

Updated September 28, 2012
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Pension Partners  1993-A,  Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of operations con-
tained in its Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended June 30, 1998 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         1,100
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  49,576
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               50,676
<PP&E>                                         4,242,481
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,202,931)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,090,226
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          113,831
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,976,395
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,090,226
<SALES>                                        82,154
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               82,254
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  188,517<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (137,557)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (137,557)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (137,557)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
REAL ESTATE ALLIANCE LTD., petitioner, v. MOVE, INC., et al.

No. 18-252.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Motion of Mark Tornetta for leave to intervene to file a petition for rehearing denied.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 29, 2019

No. 04-18-00693-CR

Badesire BAHINDWA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR5024

The Honorable Mark Luitjen, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Appellant has filed a pro se motion requesting the appointment of counsel. Appellant is 

represented by Michael S. Raign, who has filed an Anders brief in this appeal and whose motion 

to withdraw has been held in abeyance. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410–11 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2008) (“Under the Anders procedure, the motion to withdraw will not be granted 

until the appellate court decides whether the appeal is, in fact, wholly frivolous, or whether there 

are any arguable claims of merit. In either event, the motion to withdraw will then be granted 

and either the appeal will be [disposed of] or the case abated to the trial court for appointment of 

new counsel.”). By order dated January 9, 2019, appellant was ordered to file his pro se brief by 

March 11, 2019. No pro se brief was filed, and the appeal is set to be submitted on July 9, 2019. 

Appellant’s motion is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on May 29, 2019.

 PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _________________________

 Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court
No. 6:23-cv-00032

James Ralph Odom,

Plaintiff,

v.

Gregg County Sheriff’s Department et al.,

Defendants.

ORD ER

Plaintiff James Ralph Odom, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the above-styled and numbered civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love. On December 8, 2023, Judge Love issued a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Doc. 23. Judge Love recommended that the claims against the Gregg 

County Sheriff’s Department and defendant Grizzle in his official 

capacity be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Id. 

Judge Love recommended that the claims against defendant Ramo 

be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and that the 

claims against the Doe defendants be dismissed without prejudice 

for failure to state a claim. Id. Judge Love recommended that the excessive force and RLUIPA claims against defendant Hoover be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Id. Lastly, Judge 

Love recommended that the First Amendment claim against defendant Hoover and the excessive force and medical deliberate indifference claims against defendant Owens should proceed past the initial 

screening stage. Id. To date, no objections have been filed and the 

time period for doing so has passed.

When no party objects to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court reviews it only for clear error. See Douglass 

v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report, and being satisfied that it 

Case 6:23-cv-00032-JCB-JDL Document 36 Filed 03/06/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 131
contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and recommendation. Doc. 23.

For the reasons stated in the report, the claims against the Gregg 

County Sheriff’s Department and defendant Grizzle are dismissed 

without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The claims against defendant Ramo are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. 

The claims against the Doe defendants are dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The excessive force and RLUIPA 

claims against defendant Hoover are dismissed with prejudice for 

failure to state a claim. Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim against 

defendant Hoover and excessive force and medical deliberate indifference claims against defendant Owens remain before the court on 

referral to the magistrate judge. The clerk shall terminate all other 

defendants from the docket.

So ordered by the court on March 6, 2024.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge

Case 6:23-cv-00032-JCB-JDL Document 36 Filed 03/06/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 132