alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:10-cr-00027-SPM-GRJ   Document 1   Filed 06/22/10   Page 1 of 21

Case 1:10-cr-00027-SPM-GRJ   Document 1   Filed 06/22/10   Page 2 of 21

Case 1:10-cr-00027-SPM-GRJ   Document 1   Filed 06/22/10   Page 3 of 21

Case 1:10-cr-00027-SPM-GRJ   Document 1   Filed 06/22/10   Page 4 of 21

Case 1:10-cr-00027-SPM-GRJ   Document 1   Filed 06/22/10   Page 5 of 21

Case 1:10-cr-00027-SPM-GRJ   Document 1   Filed 06/22/10   Page 6 of 21

Case 1:10-cr-00027-SPM-GRJ   Document 1   Filed 06/22/10   Page 7 of 21

Case 1:10-cr-00027-SPM-GRJ   Document 1   Filed 06/22/10   Page 8 of 21

Case 1:10-cr-00027-SPM-GRJ   Document 1   Filed 06/22/10   Page 9 of 21

Case 1:10-cr-00027-SPM-GRJ   Document 1   Filed 06/22/10   Page 10 of 21

Case 1:10-cr-00027-SPM-GRJ   Document 1   Filed 06/22/10   Page 11 of 21

Case 1:10-cr-00027-SPM-GRJ   Document 1   Filed 06/22/10   Page 12 of 21

Case 1:10-cr-00027-SPM-GRJ   Document 1   Filed 06/22/10   Page 13 of 21

Case 1:10-cr-00027-SPM-GRJ   Document 1   Filed 06/22/10   Page 14 of 21

Case 1:10-cr-00027-SPM-GRJ   Document 1   Filed 06/22/10   Page 15 of 21

Case 1:10-cr-00027-SPM-GRJ   Document 1   Filed 06/22/10   Page 16 of 21

Case 1:10-cr-00027-SPM-GRJ   Document 1   Filed 06/22/10   Page 17 of 21

Case 1:10-cr-00027-SPM-GRJ   Document 1   Filed 06/22/10   Page 18 of 21

Case 1:10-cr-00027-SPM-GRJ   Document 1   Filed 06/22/10   Page 19 of 21

Case 1:10-cr-00027-SPM-GRJ   Document 1   Filed 06/22/10   Page 20 of 21

Case 1:10-cr-00027-SPM-GRJ   Document 1   Filed 06/22/10   Page 21 of 21
Eagle Broadband, Inc., and Subsidiaries
                 Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
                                 August 31, 2004

Exhibit 23.2

        Consent of Lopez, Blevins, Bork & Associates, LLC
        Independent Public Accountants

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-110309 and 333-117690) and on Form S-3 (Nos.
333-109481, 333-106074, 333-118117, 333-111160 and 333-97913) of Eagle
Broadband, Inc., of our report dated December 15, 2003, relating to the
financial statements, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/ Lopez, Blevins, Bork & Associates, LLC
------------------------------------------
Lopez, Blevins, Bork & Associates, LLC
Houston, Texas
November 30, 2004



                                      F-30
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

CHRISTINE MOYES,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:09-CV-334-SPM/WCS

KEISER SCHOOL INC,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART

 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Strike

Documents filed in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 71) and

Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition (doc. 73). For the reasons expressed herein, the

Motion to Strike will be granted in part and denied in part. 

Defendant first seeks to strike Section III(C) of the Plaintiff’s Response in

Opposition (doc. 69) to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 55),

which raises a record of impairment argument against summary judgment. As the

Plaintiff concedes that the section should be stricken, the Defendant’s Motion to

Strike will be granted as to this passage.

Defendant also seeks to strike documents which were not produced, and

affidavits of witnesses who were not identified in discovery. Plaintiff states that
these witnesses, affidavits, and documents were not included in the discovery

responses and disclosures due to inadvertence or the Plaintiff’s own late discovery

of the evidence, that the Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s intention to call the

witnesses by way of prior cases, and that these witnesses are important to the

Plaintiff’s presentation of her case alleging discrimination.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c) provides that a party failing to provide

information in discovery is not allowed to use that information “unless the failure was

substantially justified or is harmless.” In the Eleventh Circuit, when deciding whether

to exclude a non-disclosed witness, the court should consider three factors: “‘(1) the

importance of the testimony, (2) the reasons for the [] failure to disclose the witness

earlier, and (3) the prejudice to the opposing party if the witness [is] allowed to

testify.’” Cooley v. Great Southern Wood Preserving, 138 Fed.Appx. 149, 161 (11th

Cir. 2005) (quoting Bearint ex rel. Bearint v. Dorell Juvenile Group, Inc., 389 F.3d

1339, 1353 (11th Cir. 2004)).

Upon consideration of these factors, the Court concludes that, as the

Defendant has been aware of the evidence and witnesses sufficiently before trial,

and as these witnesses are important in the presentation of the Plaintiff’s case, they

should not be stricken on account of Plaintiff’s inadvertence. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Defendant’s Motion to Strike (doc. 71) is GRANTED as to Section

III(C) of the Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to the Motion for

2
Summary Judgment.

2. In all other respects, the Defendant’s Motion to Strike (doc. 71) is

DENIED.

3. To the extent that Defendant shall require additional discovery,

including via deposition, in preparation for trial, regarding the

evidence and witnesses at issue in the Motion to Strike, Defendant

should file a motion for the Court’s consideration.

DONE AND ORDERED this tenth day of September, 2010.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

3
# C_2010265EN.01000301.xml

| 30.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 265/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 265/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5886 — Emerson Electric/Chloride Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 265/02

On 24 August 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5886. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5886. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CORY T. PERRY,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:10cv281/MCR/EMT

WALTER McNEIL, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated June 29, 2011 (Doc. 59). Plaintiff has been furnished a copy of

the Report and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections

pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo

determination of any timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

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

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply

with an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of July, 2011.

s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00281-MCR-EMT Document 60 Filed 07/27/11 Page 1 of 1
# C_2010196EN.01001001.xml

| 20.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 196/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 196/10

---

Call for proposals from the European GNSS Supervisory Authority under the ‘Cooperation’ work programme of the 7th EC Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities

2010/C 196/05

Notice is hereby given of the launch of a call for proposals from the European GNSS Supervisory Authority under the ‘Cooperation’ work programme of the 7th Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2007 to 2013).

Proposals are invited for the following call.

‘Cooperation’ Specific Programme:

‘Cooperation’ Specific Programme:

—   Theme: Transport (including Aeronautics)

—   Sub-theme: Support to the European Global Navigation Satellite System (Galileo) and EGNOS

—   Call Identifier: FP7-GALILEO-2011-GSA-1-a & FP7-GALILEO-2011-GSA-1-b

This call for proposals relates to the work programme adopted by Commission Decision C(2010) 4900 of 19 July 2010.

This call for proposals relates to the work programme adopted by Commission Decision C(2010) 4900 of 19 July 2010.

Information on the call budget, deadlines and modalities, the work programme, the descriptions of topics, and the guide for applicants on how to submit proposals is available through the CORDIS website:

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/dc/index.cfm

---
**EXHIBIT 23**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-88842 of OhioLegacy Corp on Form S-8, of our report dated March 8, 2006, relating to the consolidated balancesheets of Ohio Legacy Corp as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidatedstatements of operations, changes in shareholders’ equity and cash flows for the years then ended,which is included in the December 31, 2005 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Ohio Legacy Corp.     Crowe Chizek and Company LLCCleveland, Ohio  March 30, 2006
No. 07-16-00349-CR

Bernardo Luis Avila

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

Appellee §

§

§

§ From the 287th District Court

of Bailey County

August 1, 2017

Opinion Per Curiam

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated August 1, 2017

, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis

, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

SLEP-TONE ENTERTAINMENT CORP., 

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:11-cv-32/RS-CJK

FAYE JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

UORDER

From the pleadings, it appears that common questions of law or fact are involved 

in the five trademark infringement suits filed in this Court: Slep-Tone Entertainment 

Corp. v. David Morgan, et al., Slep-Tone Entertainment Corp. v. Kara-O-King Inc., et 

al., Slep-Tone Entertainment Corp. v. Faye Johnson, et al., Slep-Tone Entertainment 

Corp. v. Arther Allen, et al., and Slep-Tone Entertainment Corp. v. Tequila Mexico of 

Pensacola Inc., et al. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 (a) (2), and with the consent of Chief 

Judge Casey Rodgers and Senior Judge Stephan Mickle, the five cases shall be 

consolidated and assigned to me. In addition, pursuant to Fla. N.D. Loc. R. 3.1(C), the 

venue for the Pensacola and Gainesville cases shall be transferred to the Panama City 

division. 

Case 1:10-cv-00207-RS-GRJ Document 60 Filed 08/29/11 Page 1 of 2
IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The Clerk shall consolidate cases 1:10cv27-SPM/GRJ, 5:10cv71-RS/CJK, 

5:11cv32-RS/CJK, 5:11cv69-RS/EMT, and 3:11cv191-MCR/EMT. 

2. The Clerk shall file a copy of this Order in each of these cases. 

3. All future pleadings should be filed only in case 5:11cv32-RS/CJK. 

4. The Motion to Set Aside the Scheduling Order (Doc. 29) in 5:11cv69 is 

GRANTED. A new scheduling order will be forthcoming for the consolidated 

cases. 

ORDERED on August 29, 2011.

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:10-cv-00207-RS-GRJ Document 60 Filed 08/29/11 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-135076, 333-116930, 333-107525, 333-90045, 333-77943, 333-33038, 333-39396, 333-67692, 333-70334, 333-145208) of Autobytel Inc. of our reports dated March 11, 2009, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements and schedule of Autobytel Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Autobytel Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2008. 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

Orange County, California 

March 11, 2009
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION 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 of Rogue Wave Software, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2003 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Kathleen E. Brush, Chief
Executive Officer and interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or 78o(d)); and
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Dated: November 21, 2003
    
    /s/ Kathleen E. BrushKathleen E. BrushChief Executive Officer and interimChief Financial Officer
# C_2009311EN.01001501.xml

| 19.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/15

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

2009/C 311/06

Image

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Luxembourg

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Luxembourg

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. The Commission publishes all new euro coin designs (1) with a view to informing all parties required to handle coins in the course of their work as well as the public at large. In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), the Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the Community providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national side features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country: Luxembourg

Subject of commemoration: Coat of Arms of the Grand Duke

Description of the design: The inner part of the coin depicts, on the left, a portrait of Grand Duke Henri facing towards the right, and on the right, the Coat of Arms of the Grand Duke, above which the year of minting ‘2010’ is featured between Mint marks, overlapping slightly into the outer ring. Below, the name of the issuing country ‘LËTZEBUERG’ overlaps slightly into the outer ring.

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued: 1 million

Date of issue: end-January 2010

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1, for the national sides of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

DENISE MASON, 

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-178/RS-MD

PINNACLE HEALTH FACILITIES XXIV,

L.P. d/b/a ST. ANDREWS BAY SKILLED

NURSING AND REHABILITION CENTER,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

UORDER

Before me is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6). Plaintiff has not filed a 

response. 

This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to respond. N.D. Fla. 

Loc. R. 7.1 (C) (1). The clerk is directed to close the case. 

ORDERED on August 20, 2010

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

QUAR’MARDEN QUAR’NAIN BRAND,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:10cv415/MCR/EMT

INMATE PHONE SERVICE, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Plaintiff commenced this action

by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). By order of this court dated

October 21, 2010, Plaintiff was given thirty (30) days in which to file an amended complaint (see

Doc. 4). Plaintiff was also instructed to pay the filing fee or submit a completed motion to proceed

in forma pauperis within that time (id.). The court subsequently extended the deadline for

compliance to December 22, 2010 (see Docs. 10, 11). Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint

or pay the filing fee or submit a completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis; therefore, on

December 28, 2010, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause, within twenty-one

(21) days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court

(Doc. 14). The time for compliance with the show cause order has now elapsed, and Plaintiff has

failed to file an amended complaint or pay the filing fee or submit a completed motion to proceed

in forma pauperis .

 Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an

order of the court.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 21st day of January 2011.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 2 of 2

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear

on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only. A copy of objections shall be

served upon all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of

factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir.

1988).

Case No: 3:10cv415/MCR/EMT
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

HUGH M GAHAGEN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00184-MP -GRJ

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 16 Mediation Report and Doc. 15, Stipulation of

Dismissal. In these documents, the parties indicate that they have reached settlement on all

claims. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice and this case is closed. 

2. The Court will retain jurisdiction for 60 days, however, to ensure that settlement

is effected.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of April, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:10-cv-00184-MP-GRJ Document 17 Filed 04/22/11 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

WINNIE THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 3:10cv318/MCR/EMT

CINCINNATI INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER OF RECUSAL

I hereby recuse myself from presiding over this matter.

SO ORDERED this 30th day of August, 2010.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 234 (Thursday, December 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 68956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5955]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Publication of the Tier 2 Tax Rates

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Publication of the tier 2 tax rates for calendar year 2008 as 
required by section 3241(d) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 
section 3241). Tier 2 taxes on railroad employees, employers, and 
employee representatives are one source of funding for benefits under 
the Railroad Retirement Act.

DATES: The tier 2 tax rates for calendar year 2008 apply to 
compensation paid in calendar year 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David G. Mills, CC:TEGE:EOEG:ET1, 
Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20224, Telephone Number (202) 622-0047 (not a toll-free number).
    Tier 2 Tax Rates: The tier 2 tax rate for 2008 under section 
3201(b) on employees is 3.9 percent of compensation. The tier 2 tax 
rate for 2008 under section 3221(b) on employers is 12.1 percent of 
compensation. The tier 2 tax rate for 2008 under section 3211(b) on 
employee representatives is 12.1 percent of compensation.

    Dated: November 3, 2007.
Nancy Marks,
Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government 
Entities).
[FR Doc. 07-5955 Filed 12-3-07; 2:29 pm]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

DANIEL COOPER,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:10cv158-RH/GRJ

CAPTAIN SHAW et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND

DIRECTING THE ENTRY OF A JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE CASE

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, ECF No. 10. No objections have been filed. Upon

consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 9, is

GRANTED. On the issue of dismissal, the report and recommendation is

ACCEPTED and adopted as the court’s opinion. The clerk must enter judgment

stating, “This case is dismissed with prejudice.” The clerk must close the file. 

SO ORDERED on January 6, 2011.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge