alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

ARELIOUS RAY REED,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 08-CV-14836

THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, 

Defendant.

_________________________/

ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL

Before the court is Plaintiff Arelius Ray Reed’s pro se “Complaint,” filed pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. After careful consideration, the court will dismiss Plaintiff’s

complaint under § 1915 because Defendant is immune from this action. 

Complaints filed in forma pauperis are subject to the screening requirements of

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 866 (6th Cir. 2000). Section

1915(e)(2) requires district courts to screen and dismiss complaints that are frivolous,

fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a

defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); McGore v.

Wigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997). A complaint is frivolous and subject to

sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(e) if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 

While Plaintiff neglected to specify a federal statute upon which relief may be

granted, the court construes his complaint as an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Under § 1983, Plaintiff must allege that (1) he was deprived of a right, privilege, or
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\08-14836.REED.1915.Summary.Dismissal.Judicial.Defendant.rdw.ljd.wpd

2

immunity secured by the federal Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) the

deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

see also Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155-57 (1978). Plaintiff fails to meet the

second requirement because Defendant is not a “person” as described under § 1983. 

Foster v. Walsh, 864 F.2d 416, 418 (6th Cir. 1988) (“[A] court is not a ‘person’ within the

meaning of that term as used in § 1983.”) Therefore, the court will dismiss Plaintiff’s

complaint and need not address whether Plaintiff satisfies the first requirement of a §

1983 claim. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis” [Dkt.

# 2] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint [Dkt. #1] is DISMISSED.

Finally, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for “Service of the Summons and

Complaint” and “Application for Appointment of Counsel” [Dkt. # 3] are DENIED as

MOOT.

s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 25, 2008

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, November 25, 2008, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                      CHASE MANHATTAN RV OWNER TRUST 1997-A
                          ANNUAL OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

                            COMPLIANCE WITH AGREEMENT

         The undersigned certifies that he is a Senior Vice President of The CIT
Group/Sales Financing, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware
("CITSF"), and that as such he is duly authorized to execute and deliver this
certificate on behalf of CITSF in connection with Section 4.9(a) of the Sale and
Servicing Agreement, dated as of September 1, 1997 (the "Agreement"), among
CITSF, as Servicer, Chase Manhattan Bank USA, National Association and The Chase
Manhattan Bank, as Sellers, and Wilmington Trust Company acts as Owner Trustee
(all capitalized terms used herein without definition having the respective
meanings specified in the Agreement). The undersigned further certifies that a
review of the activities of CITSF during the preceding calendar year and of its
performance under the Agreement has been made under his supervision and to the
best of his knowledge, based on such review, CITSF has fulfilled all its
obligations under the Agreement throughout the preceding calendar year.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed hereto my signature this 1st day of
March, 2001.

                                              THE CIT GROUP/SALES
                                              FINANCING, INC., as Servicer



                                              /s/ Frank Garcia
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Name: Frank Garcia
                                              Title: Senior Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN PART II, ITEM 8 OF FORM 10-K DATED DECEMBER 31,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         179,971
<SECURITIES>                                    29,601
<RECEIVABLES>                                      967
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               210,649
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 286,587
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,108
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            51
<OTHER-SE>                                     271,428
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   286,587
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,083
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,279
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (28,441)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (28,441)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (28,441)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (11.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (11.33)
        

</TABLE>
Letter Agreement - Friedman



 Exhibit 10.17 
  
 September 23, 2008 
  
 Neil B. Friedman 
 President Fisher-Price Bands 
  
 Dear
Neil, 
  
 Pursuant to the letter agreement between you and Mattel, Inc. (the
“Company”), dated March 17, 2005 (the “Agreement”), a copy of which is attached hereto, your eligibility to receive an enhanced benefit under the Mattel, Inc. 2005 Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the “New
SERP”) is conditioned in part on your written waiver of your right to benefits under the Prior SERP (as such term is defined in the Agreement) after remaining employed with the Company through August 19, 2007 (such service requirement,
your “Part B Eligibility Requirement”). 
  
 Given that you satisfied
your Part B Eligibility Requirement, to become eligible for a Part B Benefit under the New SERP in accordance with the Agreement, you must agree to waive your right to benefits under the Prior SERP by executing this letter agreement as set forth
below. Please note that if you execute this letter agreement, this letter agreement will be subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement, which are incorporated herein by reference. 
  
 If you agree to waive your right to benefits under the Prior SERP, I would appreciate it if
you would sign and date this letter agreement and return a copy to me. 
  
 Sincerely, 
  
 MATTEL, INC. 
  
 By:  /s/
ALAN KAYE
                                         
    
 Alan Kaye 
 SVP Human Resources 
  

			
		 	 Agreed to and accepted by:

		
		 	 /s/ NEIL B. FRIEDMAN

		 	 Neil B. Friedman
 Date: 9/27/2008



  
 Enclosure
#### Roy Rollins HANSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MISSOURI REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS COMMISSION, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 19003.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.

May 6, 1994.

*621Roy Rollins Hansen, pro se.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Donna Ann Coleman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for defendant-respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Roy Rollins Hansen appeals after the circuit court dismissed his petition for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Hearing Commission. We dismiss the appeal.

Hansen filed an application with the Missouri Real Estate Appraisers Commission (REAC) for “general certification” pursuant to the Missouri Certified and Licensed Real Estate Appraisers Act, §§ 339.500-.545, RSMo Supp.1990.

REAC informed Hansen by letter that he needed to provide evidence of his compliance with certain statutory and regulatory requirements. Hansen failed to supplement his application as advised, and the REAC denied his application.

Hansen filed a complaint with the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC). Following a hearing, the AHC upheld the action of the REAC. Hansen then filed his petition for judicial review of the AHC decision in circuit court. The circuit court dismissed Hansen’s petition and he appeals.

Hansen’s brief violates almost every subsection of Supreme Court Rule 84.04. There is no jurisdictional statement, Rule 84.04(b), and no “fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument.” Rule 84.04(c). Not only does the brief contain no point relied on in the form contemplated by Rule 84.04(d), it does not, in any fashion, identify the action or ruling sought to be reviewed, indicate wherein and why the circuit court was in error, or cite any authority-

In the absence of a point relied on, the failure of the argument to “substantially follow the order of ‘Points Relied On,’ ” Rule 84.04(e), was foreordained. Moreover, if we were to overlook the violation of Rule 84.-04(d) and grant plain error review under Rule 84.13(c) (which action we do not take), the argument does not assist us in identifying wherein and why the circuit court erred in its dismissal. Hansen’s brief, reply brief, and accompanying material appear primarily to be an attempt to place before this court evidence refuting the REAC’s reasons for rejecting his application.

We note one other Rule 84.04 violation. Hansen’s brief is bereft of specific page references to the record. Rule 84.04(h).

With exceptions not applicable here, “allegations of error not briefed or not properly briefed shall not be considered in any civil appeal_” Rule 84.13(a). Parties who represent themselves must satisfy all relevant rules of procedure. *Wheadon v. Froelich,*811 S.W.2d 817, 818[2] (Mo.App.1991). “They are entitled to no indulgence they would not have received if represented by counsel.” *Jim Medve Inv. Co. v. Bailous,*740 S.W.2d 678, 680[4] (Mo.App.1987).

We dismiss the appeal.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 08-20517-05

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

RODRIGO FARIAS-ZUNIGA,

Defendant.

/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

I. REPORT AND FINDINGS

All parties having signed a consent, on April 16, 2009, this Defendant was referred to the

undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1(B) and 636(b)(3) for the purpose

of receiving Defendant’s offer of a plea of guilty. The Defendant, along with counsel, appeared

before me on April 21, 2009. In open court I examined the Defendant under oath, confirmed the

Defendant’s consent, and then advised and questioned the Defendant regarding each of the

inquiries prescribed by Rule 11(b) of the FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Based upon

the Defendant’s answers and demeanor, I HEREBY FIND 1) that the Defendant is competent to

tender a plea, 2) that Defendant’s plea was knowingly, intelligently made, and 3) that the offense

to which he pled is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential

elements of the offense. Therefore, I have ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation

report.

Case 1:08-cr-20517-TLL-CEB ECF No. 97, PageID.291 Filed 04/22/09 Page 1 of 2
II. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that subject to the Court’s

consideration of the plea agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE, the Defendant be adjudged guilty and have sentence imposed.

III. REVIEW

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation

within ten (10) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure

to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed.2d 435 (1985); Frontier Ins. Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596

(6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005). The parties are

advised that making some objections, but failing to raise others, will not preserve all the objections

a party may have to this Report and Recommendation. McClanahan v. Comm’r of Social Security,

474 F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir. 2006); Frontier Ins. Co., 454 F.3d at 596-97. Pursuant to E.D. Mich.

LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.

 s/ Charles` E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: April 22, 2009 United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this Report and Recommendation was electronically filed this date, electronically served

on Shane Waller and George Bush, and served on District Judge Ludington in the traditional manner.

Date: April 22, 2009 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder

Case 1:08-cr-20517-TLL-CEB ECF No. 97, PageID.292 Filed 04/22/09 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-71332) of iLinc Communications, Inc., of our
report dated May 21, 2004 (which contains an explanatory paragraph indicating
substantial doubt about iLinc Communications, Inc.'s ability to continue as a
going concern), relating to the consolidated financial statements, which appear
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report dated May 21, 2004 relating to the financial statement
schedules which appear in this Form 10-K.



/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP

Costa Mesa, California

July 11, 2005
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

RICHARD BORST

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 08-14292

MS SELECT REALTY, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER SETTING SUPPLEMENTAL STATUS CONFERENCE

On November 12, 2010, the court held a status conference with counsel for

Plaintiffs and Defendant, during which it became apparent that substantial effort and

expense at trial might be saved by narrowing the contested issues of fact. The parties

have agreed to jointly engage the forensic and facilitative services of an accountant,

who will review the records and express to the parties an independent opinion on the

transactions and valuation of the claims. The parties will attempt through facilitated

discussions to narrow the issues and facts in dispute. Through this it is hoped that the

parties will also narrow the range of potential liability valuations that would apply if

liability is shown at trial. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall engage the services of a forensic

accountant and attempt facilitation before December 16, 2010. The parties are

instructed to notify the court immediately if facilitation will not be possible at this time or

if a settlement agreement is reached.
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\08-14292.BORST.Order.Setting.Conference.nkt.wpd

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel will participate in a telephone status

conference on December 16, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. The court will initiate the call.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 15, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, November 15, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders
                                                                              Ending
Class                   Interest             Principal      Losses           Balance
<S>                     <C>                  <C>            <C>              <C>
A                      8,063,009.14      18,023,623.18         0.00        117,190,376.82
C                      2,979,941.48               0.00         0.00          6,008,900.00
M1                       853,834.52               0.00         0.00         13,306,000.00
M2                       649,822.99               0.00         0.00          9,444,000.00
M3                       639,213.70               0.00         0.00          7,727,000.00
P                        451,532.19               0.00         0.00                100.00
R1                             0.00               0.00         0.00                  0.00
R2                             0.00               0.00         0.00                  0.00
R3                             0.00               0.00         0.00                  0.00
R4                             0.00               0.00         0.00                  0.00
S                        536,562.53               0.00         0.00                  0.00


</TABLE>
Summary of Compensation Arrangements with Non-Employee Directors


  EXHIBIT 10.44
  
  
 SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS
 WITH NON-EMPLOYEE
DIRECTORS
 (As of
February 19, 2009)
  
  
 The following summarizes, as of February 19,
2009, the current cash compensation and benefits received by the Company’s non-employee Directors of the Board of Directors of CryoLife. It is intended to be a summary of existing arrangements, and in no way is intended to provide any
additional rights to any non-employee Director.
  
  
 Annual Retainer and Committee Chair Fees
  
 Each of the non-employee Directors receives an
annual cash retainer of $40,000. The Audit Committee Chairman receives an additional $10,000 chairman’s fee, the Compensation Committee Chairman receives an additional $7,500 chairman’s fee and the Regulatory Affairs and Quality
Assurance Policy Committee Chairman receives an additional $5,000 chairman’s fee. CryoLife pays all of these fees in cash, on a monthly basis. The Presiding Director also receives an additional $25,000 retainer, with $10,000 paid in cash
on a monthly basis and $15,000 paid in restricted stock that vests 12 months after the date of issuance.
  
 Restricted Stock Grants
  
 The annual equity portion of non-employee Director compensation is paid in the form of an annual grant of 6,250 shares of restricted stock. These shares are issued each year
following the annual meeting of stockholders and vest on the first anniversary of issuance. The size and terms of the grant are subject to annual reevaluation by the Compensation Committee. If a Director ceases to serve as a Director for any reason,
he will forfeit any unvested portion of the award.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DARRYL ORRIN BAKER,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-10360

v. DISTRICT JUDGE NANCY G. EDMUNDS

BANNUM PLACE OF SAGINAW, LLC; MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARK A. RANDON

LATOYA BURNSIDE, DIRECTOR;

DOROTHY JONES, EMPLOYEE SPECIALIST;

CLARINET MCFADDEN; VERTRICE ROBY;

MR. LYONS; HENRY HOBSON; MS. FRIERSON,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR MARSHALS TO SERVE

DEFENDANTS (DKT. NO. 79)

On March 18, 2011, Judge Nancy G. Edmunds ordered the clerk to provide the Second

Amended Complaint for the United States Marshal Service to effectuate service on Defendants

Jody Bradley and Mark A. Cuneen. (Dkt. No. 61). Judge Edmunds said, “[t]his is the fourth

attempt to serve Defendants Cuneen and Bradley. Waiver of Service have been returned

Unexecuted on May 19, 2009, February 25, 2010 and February 4, 2011. Return of Service

Unexecuted as to either Defendants Cuneen or Bradley may result in dismissal of that

defendant.” (Dkt. No. 61 at 2).

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Marshals to Serve the

Defendants. (Dkt. No. 79). Plaintiff provides the Court another address in which he believes

-1-

2:09-cv-10360-NGE-MAR Doc # 91 Filed 08/08/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 666
Defendants Bradley and Cunnen are located. However, on June 13, 2011, Judge Edmunds

dismissed Defendants Bradley and Cuneen without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 63). Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. No. 79) is DENIED. 

s/Mark A. Randon 

Mark A. Randon

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: August 8, 2012

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the parties of record on this date,

August 8, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Melody R. Miles 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon

-2-

2:09-cv-10360-NGE-MAR Doc # 91 Filed 08/08/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 667