alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________
No. 21

- 1439

___________________________
Eric Smith

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.
St. Charles County

Defendant

Clinton Graebner, Officer; Jake Gillett, individual capacity

Defendants - Appellants

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________
Submitted: December 2 7, 2021 Filed: January 24, 2022 [Unpublished]

____________ Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________
PER CURIAM

.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, St. Charles County Jail (SCCJ) Officers Jake
Gillet and Clinton Graebner appeal the district court’s summary jud gment order-2- denying them qualified or official immunity on excessive force , battery and medical indifference claims asserted by former SCCJ inmate Eric Smith. After de novo review, we reverse

. See Mallak v. City of Baxter , 823 F.3d 441, 446 (8th Cir. 2016) (appellate court may review denial of qualified immunity where record plainly forecloses finding of material factual dispute); Walton v. Dawson, 752 F.3d 1109, 1116 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review).

We conclude Gi llet was entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force
claims

. See Jackson v. Gutzmer , 866 F.3d 969, 974 (8th Cir. 2017) (prison officials are entitled to consideration of whether good

- faith effort to maintain or restore discipline was a factor in excessive force claims); see also Hudson v . McMillian

, 503 U.S. 1, 6

- 7 (1992) (prison officials given wide

- ranging deference). We likewise
conclude Gillet was entitled to official immunity a s to Smith’s claims of battery
under Missouri law. See Wealot v . Brooks , 865 F.3d 1119, 1129 (8th Cir. 2017) (official immunity protects public employees in Missouri from liability for negligent discretionary acts, including the use of force, but does not apply to acts done with malice or bad faith). And, we find that Graebner was entitled to qualified immunity on Smith’s claim that he was deliberately indifference to a serious medical need.
See Roberts v . Kopel , 917 F.3d 1039, 1043 (8th Cir. 2019) (corrections officers cannot be expected to recognize seri ous medical need where trained professionals could not); Gibson v. Weber , 433 F.3d 642, 646 (8th Cir. 2006) (showing of deliberate indifference is greater than gross negligence ; plaintiff must show the defendant knew of excessive risks to health but disreg arded them).

Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the district court and remand for findings consistent with this opinion

.

______________________________
February 5, 2004


Kurt Spenkoch
NPI Management Group, Inc.
6836 Bee Caves Road
Austin, TX 78746

RE:    Notice of Default and Termination

Dear Mr. Spenkoch:

      This letter will serve as notice of default by NPI under the Software
Distribution Agreement with GK Intelligent Systems, Inc. (GKIS).  Pursuant to
Article 2 of the Agreement, NPI was to pay an upgrade fee within ninety (90)
days of the effective date (i.e. October 10, 2003).  Under the Agreement, NPI
agreed to invest into GKIS a minimum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to be
used solely for the upgrading of the product for market readiness.

      NPI failed to make the agreed upon payment by January 8, 2004 as
required.  Pursuant to Section 4.2 of the Agreement, GKIS hereby gives notice
of default and unless such default is cured within thirty (30) days, the
Agreement will terminate on March 7, 2004.

      Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.

                                          Sincerely,


                                          /s/ Gary F. Kimmons

                                          Gary F. Kimmons
                                          President & CEO
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5430 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat Puerto Rico as 

part of the United States for purposes of determining whether property 

qualifies for treatment as a like-kind exchange. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 5, 2018 

Miss GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́N of Puerto Rico (for herself and Mr. SOTO) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat Puerto 

Rico as part of the United States for purposes of determining whether property qualifies for treatment as a 

like-kind exchange. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Puerto Rico Real Es5 tate Exchange Fairness Act of 2018’’. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5430 IH

1 SEC. 2. PUERTO RICO TREATED AS PART OF UNITED 

2 STATES FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINATION 

3 OF LIKE-KIND EXCHANGES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1031(h) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

6 the following new paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(3) UNITED STATES.—For purposes of this 

8 subsection, the term ‘United States’ shall be treated 

9 as including Puerto Rico.’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

11 this section shall apply to exchanges completed after the 

12 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RICHARD ZELONIS,

 Appellant, 

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

No. 08-20-00099-CR

Appeal from the

34th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20180D03785)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time within which to 

file the brief until February 2, 2021. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ordered that the Hon. Todd Morten, the Appellant’s attorney, prepare the 

Appellant’s Brief and forward the same to this Court on or before February 2, 2021.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of January 2021.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**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 Quarterly Report of Musician’s Exchange (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel Van Ness, President and Principal Accounting 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; and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

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

 

 

|   | /s/ Daniel Van Ness |
|--------|---------------------|

|   | Daniel Van Ness, |
|--------|------------------|

|   | President and |
|--------|---------------|

|   | Principal Accounting Officer |
|--------|------------------------------|

|   | May 20, 2008 |
|--------|--------------|
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

Commodity Futures Trading Commission. 

# Time and Date:

11 a.m., Friday,  January 4, 2007. 

# Place:

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room. 

# Status:

Closed. 

# Matters to be Considered:

Surveillance Matters. 

# Contact Person For More Information:

Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084. 

David A. Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 07-6249 Filed 12-26-07; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
#### STATE v. GOSNELL

No. 185 P.C.

Case below: 38 N.C. App. 679.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 February 1979. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 5 February 1979.
#### STATE v. ROBINSON

No. 6 PC.

Case below: 15 N.C. App. 362.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 14 September 1972.
# C_2011122EN.01000502.xml

| 20.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 122/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 122/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6059 — Norbert Dentressangle/Laxey Logistics)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 122/03

On 21 March 2011, 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 32011M6059. 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 32011M6059. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PANAMA CITY DIVISION 

HANCOCK BANK, a Mississippi 

banking corporation, 

Plaintiff/ Counter-defendant 

vs. CASE NO. 5:11-cv-94/RS-CJK

BOYD BROTHERS, INC., a Florida 

corporation, et al., 

Defendants/ Counterclaimants 

_________________________________________/ 

ORDER

Before me is Plaintiff’s Response to Show Cause Order (Doc. 35). 

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

in these five suits filed in this Court: 

Hancock Bank v. Boyd Brothers et al., 5:11-cv-94-RS-CJK 

Hancock Bank v. Boyd Brothers et al., 5:11-cv-95-RS-GRJ 

Hancock Bank v. Boyd Brothers et al., 5:11-cv-96-RS-CJK 

Hancock Bank v. Boyd Brothers et al., 5:11-cv-97-RS-EMT 

Hancock Bank v. Boyd Brothers et al., 5:11-cv-98-RS-CJK 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 (a) (2), the five cases shall be consolidated. 

Case 5:11-cv-00094-RS-CJK Document 36 Filed 06/14/11 Page 1 of 2
IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The Clerk shall consolidate the cases. 

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 5:11-cv-94-RS-CJK. 

ORDERED on June 14, 2011. 

/S/ Richard Smoak

RICHARD SMOAK 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:11-cv-00094-RS-CJK Document 36 Filed 06/14/11 Page 2 of 2
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

PREMIER PROMOTIONS USA D/B/A

PREMIER 1 AUTOGLASS A/A/O ROBERT HARDY,

Appellant,

v.

Case No. 5D21-1269 

LT Case No. 2018-SC-026325-O 

PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellee.

________________________________/ 

Opinion filed November 15, 2022

Nonfinal Appeal from the County Court 

for Orange County, 

Carly S. Wish, Judge. 

Earl I. Higgs, Jr., of Higgs Law, P.A., 

Orlando, for Appellant. 

Lissette M. Gonzalez, of Cole, Scott 

& Kissane, P.A., Miami, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. NCI, LLC v. Progressive Select Ins., No. 5D21-1282, 

2022 WL 16702296 (Fla. 5th DCA Nov. 4, 2022). 

SASSO, TRAVER and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JOHN M. PAULK,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:10cv148/MCR/MD

WALTER A. MCNEIL, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

commenced this action on June 2, 2010 by filing a civil rights complaint under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (doc. 1) and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 2). On June

17, 2010, this court entered an order finding plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis deficient, and directing plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or correct the 1

deficiency in his in forma pauperis application within twenty-eight (28) days (doc. 4). 

Plaintiff was warned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this

case be dismissed (id.). Plaintiff did not comply with the order, or otherwise

respond.

Accordingly, on July 28, 2010, the court issued an order directing plaintiff to

show cause, within fourteen (14) days, why this case should not be dismissed for

his failure to comply with an order of the court (doc. 5). That deadline has passed,

and plaintiff has not responded. 

 Plaintiff failed to include the required prisoner consent form and a printout of the transactions in

1

his inmate trust account for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint.
Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. That this cause be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for plaintiff’s

failure to comply with an order of the court.

2. That the clerk be directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 19 day of August, 2010. th

 

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed

within fourteen days after being served a copy hereof. Any different deadline that

may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and does not

control. A copy of any objections shall be served upon any 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 (11 Cir. 1988). th

Case No: 5:10cv148/MCR/MD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JOANNA DYKES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO. 4:11cv116/RS-WCS

ELIZABETH DUDEK in her

official capacity as Secretary of the 

Florida Agency for Health Care

Administration, et al., 

Defendants.

__________________________________

ORDER

The relief requested in the Stipulated Motion for Extension (Doc. 33) is 

GRANTED. The Joint Report shall be filed not later than July 15, 2011. 

ORDERED on July 14, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:11-cv-00116-RS-CAS Document 34 Filed 07/14/11 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JONATHAN WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00080-MP -GRJ

ALACHUA COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, 

SADIE DARNELL,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 21, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, recommending that this case be dismissed as frivolous. The time for filing

objections has passed, and none have been filed. The Court agrees that Plaintiff has not

specified a particular legal proceeding to which he was allegedly denied access. Accordingly,

his constitutional claim of denial of access to Court fails. It is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and

incorporated herein.

2. The complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim for relief and as

frivolous .

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CINDE R. TROUTMAN,

Plaintiff,

v. 3:11cv89-WS

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,,

Commissioner of Social 

Security Administration,

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation docketed

December 5, 2011. See Doc. 10. The magistrate judge recommends that the

Commissioner's decision to deny the plaintiff's application for benefits be affirmed. The

plaintiff has filed no objections to the report and recommendation. 

Having carefully reviewed the record, this court finds that the magistrate judge's

report and recommendation should be adopted. Because there was substantial

evidence in the record to support the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits, it is

ORDERED:

1. The court ADOPTS the magistrate judge's report and recommendation to

Case 3:11-cv-00089-WS-CJK Document 11 Filed 01/06/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

affirm the Commissioner's denial of the plaintiff's application for benefits.

2. The Commissioner's decision to deny Plaintiff's application for benefits is

AFFIRMED.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of January , 2012.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-00089-WS-CJK Document 11 Filed 01/06/12 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. Case Nos. 3:10cr96/LAC/EMT

3:12cv221/LAC/EMT

OSHANI TOMAR RICE

___________________________________/

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated March 3, 2014 (doc. 65). The parties have been furnished a copy of the

Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to

Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, 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. The motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence (doc. 56) is DENIED.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3 day of April, 2014. rd

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cr-00096-LC-EMT Document 66 Filed 04/03/14 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DONNA R. HARGROVE, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 1:11-cv-54-MP-GRJ

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion For Enlargement. (Doc. 9.) 

Defendant requests a thirty day extension of time to file his answer and the

administrative record. The Defendant requests a thirty day enlargement of time to file

the administrative record because of a slight backlog in the preparation of

administrative records. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(B), Defendant’s counsel certifies

that Plaintiff’s counsel does not object to the requested relief. 

Accordingly, upon due consideration, Defendant’s Motion For Enlargement (Doc.

9) is GRANTED. Defendant shall file his answer and the administrative record by July

5, 2011.

DONE AND ORDERED this 1 day of June, 2011. 

st

s/ Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-00054-MP-GRJ Document 10 Filed 06/01/11 Page 1 of 1
# C_2011160EN.01000601.xml

| 28.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 160/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 160/6

---

2011/C 160/02

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 152, 21.5.2011

OJ C 152, 21.5.2011

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 145, 14.5.2011

OJ C 139, 7.5.2011

OJ C 130, 30.4.2011

OJ C 120, 16.4.2011

OJ C 113, 9.4.2011

OJ C 103, 2.4.2011

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
#### BOYCE STEGALL v. CATAWBA OIL COMPANY OF N. C.; SHELL OIL COMPANY and ROY BROOME.

(Filed 20 November 1963.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Johnston, J.,*May 1963 Mixed Session of UNION.

Civil .action ,to recover damages for the destruction by fire of a house .allegedly .caused by Coy Lee Stegall pouring a mixture of gasoline and kerosene or a mixture of kerosene .and another highly explosive substance ¡on a live fire in a wood, stove, which resulted in an. explosion, beard upon separate demurrers filed to the 'amended complaint by defendants Catawba Oil Company of North Carolina and Shell Oil Company.

From a judgment sustaining the separate demurrer of each oil company, plaintiff appeals.

*J. Max Thomas for plaintiff appellant.*

*Smith '& Griffin by C. Frank Griffin and Richardson & Dawkins by O. L. Richardson for defendant appellees Catawba Oil Company of N. C. and Shell Oil Company.*

PARKER, J.

The explosion and fire here is the same explosion and fire as alleged in .the amended complaint in the case of Sheila Mangum Stegall, Administratrix of Coy Lee Stegall, against the same defendants here, the opinion in which is filed this day *ante,*459, and the same explosion and fire .as alleged in .the amended complaint in the case of Pernay Stegall .against the same defendants here, the opinion in which is filed this day ante 468. The explosion and fire caused the *470death of Coy Lee Stegall, the destruction, in the house of the furniture of Bemay Stegall, and the destruction of a 'house owned 'by the plaintiff, in which his brother Perniay Stegall lived as his tenant.

The amended complaints in -all three oases are identical, with the exception that one alleges the death of Coy Lee Stegall, and the other two property damage. The demurrers filed in all three eases are identical. The single judgment in all three cases is identical. The briefs filed )by counsel in .all three cases .are identical, with the exception that in. the death case defendants’ joint brief contends that on the face of the amended complaint itself contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff’s intestate Coy Lee Stegall iis so- patent and unquestionable as to b>ar recovery by plaintiff. In addition, counsel in all three cases are the same.

The judgment below is affirmed upon authority of the case of Sheila Mangum Stegall, Administratrix of *Coy Lee Stegall v. Catawba Oil Company of N. C., Shell Oil Company and Roy Broome, ante,*459. This is without prejudice to plaintiff’s right to move in the court below for leave to amend his amended complaint under the provisions of G.S. 1-131,

Affirmed.