alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. Case No. 5:11cr3-MW/EMT

YAMURA HUDSON,

Defendant.

__________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate 

Judge's Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 149. Upon 

consideration, no objections have been filed. Previously, this Court 

adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. ECF 

No. 150. Defendant, however, filed a motion for reconsideration, 

ECF No. 154, which this Court granted. ECF No. 155. In so 

granting, this Court gave Defendant until May 15, 2019 to file 

objections. That day has come and gone. There remain no 

objections to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation, ECF No. 149, is accepted 

and adopted as this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter 
 

2

judgment stating, “The Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, 

Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody,” 

ECF No. 148, is summarily DENIED and DISMISSED. A 

certificate of appealability is DENIED.” The Clerk shall close the 

file.

SO ORDERED on May 24, 2019.

s/Mark E. Walker ____

Chief United States District Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JENNIFER WELCH,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:11cv112/RS-EMT

FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES,

INC.,

Defendant. 

________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. 5). 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. This case is dismissed with prejudice.

2. The clerk is directed to close the file.

ORDERED on May 25, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:11-cv-00112-RS-EMT Document 6 Filed 05/25/11 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

LAZARO ROCHE,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:11-cv-00143-MP-WCS

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOM ENFORCEMENT,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 13, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, which recommends that respondent’s motion to dismiss or transfer be granted

and the petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, be transferred to

the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division for all

further proceedings. Petitioner has not objected to the recommendation, and the time for doing

so has passed. Finding no plain error, it is accordingly

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Doc. 13, is

ACCEPTED and incorporated herein.

2. Respondent’s motion to transfer, Doc. 12, is GRANTED.

Case 4:11-cv-00143-MP-WCS Document 14 Filed 09/09/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, Doc. 1, is TRANSFERRED to the United

States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division for all

further proceedings.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of September, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 4:11-cv-00143-MP-WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00143-MP-WCS Document 14 Filed 09/09/11 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JUDY CLINE,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-241-SPM -GRJ

PRINCIPAL LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Principal Life Insurance Company’s

Unopposed Motion For Extension of Time. (Doc. 4.) Defendant requests a thirty day

extension of time to respond to the Complaint. Plaintiff does not object to the requested

relief. 

Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is ORDERED:

1. Defendant Principal Life Insurance Company’s Unopposed Motion For

Extension of Time (Doc. 4) is GRANTED.

2. Defendant shall file its response to the Complaint on or before February 3,

2011.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28 day of December, 2010. th

s/Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5430 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

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 Gonzalez-Colon 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.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Puerto Rico Real Estate Exchange 
Fairness Act of 2018''.

SEC. 2. PUERTO RICO TREATED AS PART OF UNITED STATES FOR PURPOSES OF 
              DETERMINATION OF LIKE-KIND EXCHANGES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1031(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) United states.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
        term `United States' shall be treated as including Puerto 
        Rico.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to exchanges completed after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Page 1 of 1

Case No. 4:10cv423-RH/CAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ANDREW NATHAN WORLEY et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv423-RH/CAS

KENNETH W. DETZNER, in his 

official capacity as Florida

Secretary of State, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE TO

CLAIM ATTORNEY’S FEES OR COSTS

The joint motion to stay proceedings regarding attorney’s fees and costs, 

ECF No. 77, is GRANTED. The deadline for filing any motion for attorney’s fees 

or costs is extended to April 25, 2014.

SO ORDERED on March 12, 2014.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-00423-RH-CAS Document 78 Filed 03/12/14 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 5:11-cr-18-RS-EMT

 5:12-cv-215-RS-EMT

RICHARD SAMUEL CRUDGINGTON,

Petitioner.

_________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the October 10, 2014, Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 

(Doc. 64). To date, no objections have been filed. I have reviewed the report de novo.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is approved and 

incorporated in this Order.

2. The Defendant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 57) is DENIED.

4. The certificate of appealability is DENIED because Petitioner did not 

make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

ORDERED on November 12, 2014.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:11-cr-00018-RS-EMT Document 65 Filed 11/12/14 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

LEIKEISHA L. LEMON, 

 Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:11cv131/RS/CJK

CHATTAHOOCHEE SECURITY GUARDS, et al.,

 Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this action by filing a civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (doc. 1) and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis

(doc. 2). Upon review of the complaint, it appears the proper venue for this action

lies in the Tallahassee Division of this court. 

Venue for actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b),

which provides:

A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of

citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only

in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides if all defendants

reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part

of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a

substantial part of property that isthe subject of the action is situated, or

(3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no

district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 

Case 5:11-cv-00131-RS-CJK Document 5 Filed 05/11/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Id. In the instant case, plaintiff is suing, inter alia, Jeffrey Lockley, who resides in

Franklin County (doc. 1). The events giving rise to plaintiff’s complaint occurred in

GadsdenCounty (doc. 1). These countieslie in the Tallahassee Division ofthis court. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Pursuant to Local Rule 3.1(C), the Clerk shall transfer this case to the

Tallahassee Division of this District Court. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of May, 2011.

/s/Charles J. Kahn, Jr.

CHARLES J. KAHN

UNITEDSTATESMAGISTRATEJUDGE

Case No: 5:11cv131/RS/CJK

Case 5:11-cv-00131-RS-CJK Document 5 Filed 05/11/11 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DALE ALONZO COPEMANN,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 1:11-cv-74-SPM-GRJ

CHRISTINE BAUN,

Defendant.

___________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report

and Recommendation (doc. 4). Plaintiff has been mailed a copy and has 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, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 4) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The case is dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief.

3. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 2) is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this fourteenth day of June, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-00074-SPM-GRJ Document 5 Filed 06/15/11 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.2

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of InfoSpi, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William R. Willard,
the Treasurer and CFO 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, to my knowledge:

     1)   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the three month
          period ended March 31, 2008 (the "Quarterly Report"), fully complies
          with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated: May 8, 2008

                                      /s/ William R. Willard
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      William R. Willard
                                      Principal Accounting and Financial Officer
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JEAN M MEADOWS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00045-MP-GRJ

CITY OF INGLIS, TIMOTHY LETSON, BRANDON ROBERTS,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 25, Motion to Quash Service of Process by

Timothy Letson. On May 17, 2011, plaintiff’s process server served the summons and complaint

on the adult resident, Rebecca Sammy, at 2821 SW 36th Drive, Ocala, Florida 34474. Defendant

Letson moves the Court to quash the service of the summons and complaint upon him and argues

that he resides in Afghanistan, where he is working as a civilian contractor.

Letson asserts that proper service on an individual in a foreign country is governed by

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (f), which would require service to be performed via letters rogatory. However,

under the Federal Rules, service of the summons and complaint may be effectuated by “leaving a

copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age

and discretion who resides there . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). On April 22, 2011, Letson signed a

sworn affidavit regarding his child’s residence and stated that the child has lived with him at the

above residence from 2006 to present. Furthermore, Rebecca Sammy informed the process

server that Letson is her fiancé and would be returning home April 2012. These facts are

sufficient for the Court to determine that Letson’s dwelling or usual place of abode is the above

Case 1:11-cv-00045-MP-GRJ Document 27 Filed 06/24/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

address. Moreover, “[w]here the defendant receives actual notice and the plaintiff makes a good

faith effort to serve the defendant pursuant to the federal rule, service of process has been

effective.” Ali v. Mid-Atlantic Settlement Servs., Inc., 233 F.R.D. 32, 35-6 (D.D.C. 1996). 

Letson has received actual notice of suit, which is evidenced by his direct communication with

plaintiff’s counsel’s office. Furthermore, Letson has not been prejudiced by the method of

service. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Process, Doc. 25, is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of June, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 1:11-cv-00045-MP-GRJ

Case 1:11-cv-00045-MP-GRJ Document 27 Filed 06/24/11 Page 2 of 2
# C_2011079EN.01000401.xml

| 12.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

11 March 2011

2011/C 79/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3773 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 113,24 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4582 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86120 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,8130 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2842 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8055 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,335 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 272,80 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7067 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0412 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,1883 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1861 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3768 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3488 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,7315 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8678 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7540 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 552,50 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,5653 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,0551 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3928 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 093,52 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1891 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,172 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,5820 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,953 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2915 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,5368 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 62,3090 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3773

JPY

Japanese yen

113,24

DKK

Danish krone

7,4582

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86120

SEK

Swedish krona

8,8130

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2842

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8055

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,335

HUF

Hungarian forint

272,80

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7067

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0412

RON

Romanian leu

4,1883

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1861

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3768

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3488

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,7315

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8678

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7540

KRW

South Korean won

1 552,50

ZAR

South African rand

9,5653

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,0551

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3928

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 093,52

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1891

PHP

Philippine peso

60,172

RUB

Russian rouble

39,5820

THB

Thai baht

41,953

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2915

MXN

Mexican peso

16,5368

INR

Indian rupee

62,3090

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2011244EN.01000501.xml

| 23.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

22 August 2011

2011/C 244/05

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4413 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 110,65 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4484 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87365 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1403 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1341 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8360 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,493 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 272,83 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7095 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1830 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2635 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,5770 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3781 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4194 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,2411 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7447 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7384 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 556,56 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,3722 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,2232 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4848 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 315,00 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2778 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,191 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 41,9225 |
| THB | Thai baht | 43,008 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2996 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,6415 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 65,8170 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4413

JPY

Japanese yen

110,65

DKK

Danish krone

7,4484

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87365

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1403

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1341

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8360

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,493

HUF

Hungarian forint

272,83

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7095

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1830

RON

Romanian leu

4,2635

TRY

Turkish lira

2,5770

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3781

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4194

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,2411

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7447

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7384

KRW

South Korean won

1 556,56

ZAR

South African rand

10,3722

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,2232

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4848

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 315,00

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2778

PHP

Philippine peso

61,191

RUB

Russian rouble

41,9225

THB

Thai baht

43,008

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2996

MXN

Mexican peso

17,6415

INR

Indian rupee

65,8170

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Harris County, Texas v. International Paper Co.

Appellate case number: 01-15-00354-CV

Trial court case number: 2011-76724

Trial court: 295th District Court of Harris County

Appellant Harris County, Texas has filed a letter with the Court, informing the Court of 

documents or volumes of the appellate record that are missing in this cause. Harris County has 

requested that this Court not consider the record complete and that any deadlines based on the 

filing of the Clerk’s Record and Reporter’s Record not begin to run until the appellate record is 

complete. We grant this motion in part. We order Harris County to take all reasonable steps to 

ensure that the appellate record is complete by September 9, 2015, and to file a status report with 

this court on September 8 at noon reporting on the progress. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c), 

34.6(d). Our May 14, 2015 Order will govern the briefing schedule once the appellate record is 

complete. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _/s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually 

Date: September 1, 2015
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DWIGHT DENNIS,

Agency No.: A-079444966,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv445-SPM/WCS

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., et al.,

Respondents.

_________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes for before the Court on the magistrate judge’s Report

and Recommendation (doc. 25). Petitioner has been furnished a copy and has

filed a response (doc. 26), which the Court will treat as an objection pursuant to

Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1).

Despite the objection, I have determined that the report and

recommendation and order are correct and should be adopted. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 25) is 

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order. 

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1) filed by Dwight

Case 4:10-cv-00445-SPM-WCS Document 27 Filed 10/11/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Dennis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is denied. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of October, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge

CASE NO. 4:10cv445-SPMWCS

Case 4:10-cv-00445-SPM-WCS Document 27 Filed 10/11/11 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

SHARON E. ADKINS, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11cv9-MP-GRJ

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated January 9, 2012. (Doc. 18). 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). 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. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, denying plaintiff’s

applications for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental

security income benefits, is AFFIRMED.

DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of February, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00009-MP-GRJ Document 19 Filed 02/23/12 Page 1 of 1