text:
Komarov V.S. Foreword. // Atmospheric and oceanic optics. 1995. V. 8. No. 07. P. 939-940.
Komarov V.S., Kreminskii A.V. Optimal combination of alternative methods for spatial forecasting in problems of atmospheric ecological monitoring. I. Methodology and algorithms. // Atmospheric and oceanic optics. 1995. V. 8. No. 07. P. 941-957.
Komarov V.S., Kreminskii A.V. Optimal combination of alternative methods for spatial forecasting in problems of atmospheric ecological monitoring. II. Results of numerical experiments. // Atmospheric and oceanic optics. 1995. V. 8. No. 07. P. 958.
Isaev A.A. Method of forecasting the annual trend of meteorological conditions for problems of atmospheric monitoring. // Atmospheric and oceanic optics. 1995. V. 8. No. 07. P. 966-976.
Belov P.N. Reconstruction of air pollution field in geographic regions based on a pollution transfer model. // Atmospheric and oceanic optics. 1995. V. 8. No. 07. P. 977-984.
Komarov V.S., Soldatenko S.A., Suvorov S.S. Investigation of the sensitivity of models of pollutant transfer in the atmosphere (model and procedure). // Atmospheric and oceanic optics. 1995. V. 8. No. 07. P. 985-992.
Soldatenko S.A., Suvorov S.S., Sobolevskii O.M., Komarov V.S. Identification of sources of atmospheric pollution. // Atmospheric and oceanic optics. 1995. V. 8. No. 07. P. 993-1000.
Belov P.N., Komarov V.S. Theoretical model of radionuclides spread after possible industrial emergency. // Atmospheric and oceanic optics. 1995. V. 8. No. 07. P. 1001-1008.
Rakhimov R.F. Modelling of the aerosol processes for forecasting the vertical variability of light scattering parameters. // Atmospheric and oceanic optics. 1995. V. 8. No. 07. P. 1009-1029.
Komarov V.S., Soldatenko S.A., Borisov A.N. Method for forecasting the optical characteristics of the perturbed aerosol-cloudy atmosphere. // Atmospheric and oceanic optics. 1995. V. 8. No. 07. P. 1030-1038.
Komarov V.S., Akselevich V.I., Grishin A.I., Kreminskii A.V., Lomakina N.Ya., Matvienko G.G. Simulation and extra short-term forecast of wind characteristics from the data of lidar wind sounding. // Atmospheric and oceanic optics. 1995. V. 8. No. 07. P. 1039-1047.
Grishin A.I., Zil'berman A.E., Matvienko G.G. Lidar sensing of atmospheric precipitation. // Atmospheric and oceanic optics. 1995. V. 8. No. 07. P. 1048-1055 .
Grishin A.I., Matvienko G.G. Lidar investigations of atmospheric aerosol in the wind shear layers. // Atmospheric and oceanic optics. 1995. V. 8. No. 07. P. 1056-1062.
Yarkho E.V. Annual variations in atmospheric aerosol optical depth typical of different climatic zones. // Atmospheric and oceanic optics. 1995. V. 8. No. 07. P. 1063-1072.
Kabanov D.M., Sakerin S.M. Variability of total and spectral direct solar radiation fluxes in the vicinity of Tomsk in spring of 1993. // Atmospheric and oceanic optics. 1995. V. 8. No. 07. P. 1073-1080.
Nezval' E.I. UV-radiation trends in Moscow. // Atmospheric and oceanic optics. 1995. V. 8. No. 07. P. 1081-1089.
Akselevich V.I., Tertyshnikov A.V. Methodology of ecological monitoring data application to seismic forecasting. // Atmospheric and oceanic optics. 1995. V. 8. No. 07. P. 1090-1096.
Brodovich A.I., Ikonnikov S.A., Shabakov E.I., Kalinenko A.N. Theory of numbers as applied to systolization of algorithms for numerical handling of images. // Atmospheric and oceanic optics. 1995. V. 8. No. 07. P. 1097-1102.
Gridnev Yu.V., Protasov K.T. Segmentation of multidimensional images by clustering algorithm based on a bilateral criterion for homogeneity. // Atmospheric and oceanic optics. 1995. V. 8. No. 07. P. 1103-1111.
Panchenko M.V., Pol'kin V.V., Terpugova S.A., Tumakov A.G., Shmargunov V.P., Yausheva E.P. The formation of average regional aerosol background. // Atmospheric and oceanic optics. 1995. V. 8. No. 07. P. 1112-1114.
Kabanov M.V., Odintsov S.L. Annotated report on the project of climatic-ecological monitoring of Siberia as part of the regional scientific-engineering program Siberia. // Atmospheric and oceanic optics. 1995. V. 8. No. 07. P. 1115-1125.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.


(1) Multistate Tax Compact--The agreement between member states to promote uniform tax treatment and to avoid double taxation of multistate taxpayers, of which the State of Texas is a member, as provided for in Tax Code, Chapter 141.
(2) Sales tax--A tax imposed on the transfer of title or possession of taxable items for consideration. See Tax Code, §151.005.
(3) Use tax--This term has the meaning given in §3.346 of this title (relating to Use Tax). Use tax is complementary to the sales tax and is imposed on the storage, use, or other consumption of taxable items in this state.
<?Pub Caret -2> (b) Multistate tax credits.
(1) As a member of the multistate tax compact, and as provided under Tax Code, §151.303(c), Texas will allow as a credit against Texas use tax due any combined amounts of legally imposed sales or use taxes paid on the same item to another state or any subdivision of another state. The credit will be allowed even though the other state may not be a member of the multistate tax compact.
(D) municipal use tax imposed under Tax Code, Chapter 321, including additional municipal taxes adopted under Tax Code, §321.101(b).
(3) The following example illustrates the manner in which the credit should be calculated and applied. A person buys a laptop computer in Oklahoma for $1300 and pays 5.0% sales tax. The purchaser then takes the computer to Dallas. Texas state and local use taxes are due on this purchase at the rate of 8.25%. The 8.25% use tax is based on 6.25% state tax, 1.0% Dallas city tax, and 1.0% Dallas MTA tax. The purchaser may receive a credit for the 5.0% tax that was paid to Oklahoma. A total of 3.25% Texas state and local tax is due (8.25% Texas state and local tax - 5.0% Oklahoma state and local sales tax = 3.25%). The credit is first applied to state use tax. Therefore, state use tax of 1.25% is due (6.25% Texas state use tax - 5.0% Oklahoma state and local tax = 1.25%). The amount due for Texas state use tax is $1300 x 1.25% = $16.25. The amount due for Dallas Metropolitan Transit Authority use tax is $1300 x 1.0% = $13.00. The amount due for Dallas city use tax is $1300 x 1.0% = $13.00.
(4) Sales tax legally imposed by the State of Texas will not be refunded because of payment of a use tax imposed by another state.
(5) Use tax collected by the State of Texas will be refunded or allowed as a credit on subsequent sales and use tax returns to the extent of a subsequent payment of use tax to another state, if the other state's use tax was imposed as a result of the taxable item's use in that state prior to its use in Texas.
(6) Credit against use tax collected by the State of Texas will not be allowed for sales tax paid to another state that was not legally due and paid to another state.
(7) Credit against the Texas use tax will not be allowed for any gross receipts tax imposed on retailers in another state, if that tax is not customarily separated from the sales price of taxable items, and is not customarily passed on directly to customers as tax, but, rather, is characterized as a reimbursement or recovery of the tax owed by the retailer.
(c) Credit for tax paid to suppliers by permitted purchaser. General information about refund claims and credits that may be claimed in the context of a refund claim is located in §3.325 of this title (relating to Refunds and Payments Under Protest).
(1) Credit may be claimed on a permitted purchaser's return for tax paid to suppliers in error.
(A) Before taking a credit on a return, the permitted purchaser must have a receipt from a Texas retailer or other seller authorized to collect the Texas sales and use tax. The receipt must reflect the amount of tax paid and the selling price of the taxable item. Receipts from out-of-state sellers must identify the tax as Texas sales or use tax.
(B) A credit must be claimed within the applicable statute of limitations. See §3.339 of this title (relating to Statute of Limitations).
(C) Within the statute of limitations, a credit may be claimed on a return for a later reporting period or by filing an amended return for the reporting period in which the tax was paid in error.
(2) A permitted purchaser may claim a credit for tax paid on the purchase of taxable items that were resold prior to the purchaser making a taxable use of the items.
(3) Tax paid to a supplier on taxable items that the permitted purchaser does not resell but uses for an exempt purpose may be claimed as a credit on the purchaser's return. For example, a manufacturer who mistakenly pays tax to a supplier when purchasing manufacturing equipment that qualifies for exemption under Tax Code, §151.318 may claim a credit for the tax paid on that equipment.
(4) Local sales and use tax credit may also be claimed. A permitted purchaser who claims a credit for local sales and use tax paid to a supplier is responsible for taking the credit against local tax to the same local taxing jurisdictions to which the supplier reported the tax.
(d) Effect of a person's rights to other deductions. Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting a person's right to the deductions for bad debts, repossessions, returned sales, or renegotiated selling price as provided in the Tax Code or other sections of this title.
(e) Texas Emissions Reduction Plan Surcharge. Credit for tax paid to another state, governmental entity, or county is not allowed against the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan Surcharge imposed under Tax Code, §151.0515.


text:
2009-09-02 First worldwide family litigation filed litigation Critical https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=44351845&utm_source=google_patent&utm_medium=platform_link&utm_campaign=public_patent_search&patent=US8758303(B2) "Global patent litigation dataset” by Darts-ip is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
An injection port system comprises an injection port and an applier. The port comprises a body and a plurality of fasteners. The fasteners are integral with the body and are movable from a non-deployed position to a deployed position. The applier comprises a port engagement portion and an actuator. The port engagement portion is configured to selectively engage the port body to selectively retain the port relative to the applier. The actuator is operable to move the fasteners to the deployed position. The applier is also configured to disengage the port engagement portion from the port body to release the port from the applier when the actuator moves the fasteners to the deployed position. The actuator may release the port from the applier by moving a resilient member away from the port body as the actuator also moves the fasteners from the non-deployed position to the deployed position.
In the embodiment depicted, locator 104 includes a port engagement portion or port engagement feature comprising a pair of spaced apart cantilever arms 184 a and 184 b, each having rib 186 a and 186 b, respectively. For clarity, FIG. 27 illustrates arm 184 a in cross-section taken through rib 186 a, at the same level as for cam 178 a. At their distal ends, arms 184 a and 184 b include respective inwardly extending flanges 188 a and 188 b. Flanges 188 a and 188 b are shaped complementarily to recesses 56 on port body 8, configured to engage ledges 56 a that form an applier engagement portion when injection port 2 is retained by locator 104.
wherein the applier is configured to disengage the port engagement portion from the applier engagement portion to release the injection port from the applier when the actuator moves the fasteners from the non-deployed position to the deployed position.
2. The injection port system of claim 1, wherein the port engagement portion comprises a resilient member.
3. The injection port system of claim 2, wherein the resilient member is biased to engage the applier engagement portion.
4. The injection port system of claim 1, wherein the port engagement portion comprises an inwardly extending member configured to move from a first position to a second position, wherein the port engagement portion is configured to retain the injection port relative to the applier when the inwardly extending member is in the first position.
5. The injection port system of claim 4, wherein the port engagement portion is configured to release the injection port from the applier when the inwardly extending member is in the second position.
6. The injection port system of claim 5, wherein the applier further comprises a cam, wherein the cam is configured to move the inwardly extending member from the first position to the second position when the actuator moves the fasteners from the non-deployed position to the deployed position.
7. The injection port system of claim 6, wherein the cam is integral with the actuator.
8. The injection port system of claim 7, wherein the actuator is rotatable relative to the port engagement portion, wherein the actuator is operable to rotatably position the cam to a position where the cam moves the inwardly extending member from the first position to the second position.
9. The injection port system of claim 6, wherein the port engagement portion further comprises a cantilever arm, the cantilever arm having a first end and a second end, wherein the inwardly extending member extends inwardly from the first end of the cantilever arm.
10. The injection port system of claim 9, wherein the port engagement portion further comprises a cam engagement feature, wherein the cam engagement feature is positioned at the second end of the cantilever arm, wherein the cam is configured to selectively engage the cam engagement feature.
11. The injection port system of claim 6, wherein the cam is configured to move the inwardly extending member outwardly in order to move the inwardly extending member from the first position to the second position when the actuator moves the fasteners from the non-deployed position to the deployed position.
12. The injection port system of claim 1, wherein the body comprises an inwardly extending recess.
13. The injection port system of claim 12, wherein the applier engagement portion is defined at least in part by the inwardly extending recess, such that the port engagement portion is configured to selectively engage the inwardly extending recess.
(ii) an actuator movable from a first position to a second position, wherein the actuator is configured to actuate fasteners of an injection port when the actuator is moved from the first position to the second position, wherein the actuator is further configured to move the resilient member from the first position to the second position when the actuator is moved from the first position to the second position.
15. The injection port applier of claim 14, further comprising an actuating member located at the first end of the elongate shaft, wherein the actuating member is in communication with the actuator, wherein the actuating member is operable to move the actuator from the first position to the second position.
16. The injection port applier of claim 14, wherein the resilient member is resiliently biased to the first position.
wherein the act of moving the actuator to deploy the fasteners and the act of releasing the port body from the port applier are performed substantially simultaneously.
Abstract and English Machine Translation of Japanese Patent No. JP 2000-093524.
Australian Examiner's Report dated Apr. 18, 2012 for Application No. AU 2007202311.
Australian Examiner's Report dated Apr. 22, 2010 for Application No. AU2005202292.
Australian Examiner's Report dated Dec. 21, 2011 for Application No. AU 2011200887.
Australian Examiner's Report dated Feb. 18, 2011 for Application No. AU 2006202115.
Australian Examiner's Report dated Feb. 25, 2011 for Application No. AU 2006202145.
Australian Examiner's Report dated Jun. 2, 2009 for Application No. AU 2004202549.
Australian Examiner's Report dated Sep. 27, 2011 for Application No. AU 2011200887.
Australian Examiner's Report Mar. 19, 2012 for Application No. AU 2006202145.
Australian Search Report dated Jul. 16, 2007 for Singaporean Application No. SG200604063.
Australian Search Report dated Sep. 7, 2007 for Singaporean Application No. SG206604149.
Australian Written Opinion dated Nov. 30, 2007 for Singaporean Application No. SG200604066.
Canadian Office Action dated Apr. 11, 2011 for Application No. CA 2471185.
Canadian Office Action dated Mar. 19, 2013 for Application No. CA 2590827.
Canadian Office Action dated Nov. 6, 2012 for Application No. CA 2549241.
Canadian Office Action dated Nov. 7, 2012 for Application No. CA 2549219.
Canadian Office Action dated Nov. 9, 2011 for Application No. CA 2508648.
Canadian Office Action dated Sep. 19, 2012 for Application No. CA 2508648.
Chinese Office Action dated Apr. 19, 2012 for Application No. CN 200610093156.4.
Chinese Office Action dated Apr. 20, 2007 for Application No. CN 200410069447.0.
Chinese Office Action dated Apr. 5, 2012 for Application No. CN 200710112538.1.
Chinese Office Action dated Dec. 22, 2011 for Application No. CN 200610093156.4.
Chinese Office Action dated Jan. 12, 2012 for Application No. CN 200610093155X.
Chinese Office Action dated Jul. 6, 2011 for Application No. CN 200710112538.1.
Chinese Office Action dated Jun. 22, 2010 for Application No. CN 200710112538.1.
EPO Notice of Opposition to a European Patent dated Sep. 2, 2009 for European Application No. and Patent No. 06 253 277.5 / 1 736 197.
EPO Notice of Opposition to a European Patent dated Sep. 2, 2009 for European Application No. and Patent No. 06 253 277.5/1 736 197.
EPO Response to Attend Oral Proceedings dated Nov. 8, 2010 for European Application No. and Patent No. 06 253 277.5 / 1 736 197.
EPO Response to Attend Oral Proceedings dated Nov. 8, 2010 for European Application No. and Patent No. 06 253 277.5/1 736 197.
European Examination report dated Mar. 4, 2009 for Application No. 06 253 283.3.
European Search Report dated Apr. 26, 2011 for Application No. 10177441.
European Search Report dated Mar. 31, 2011 for Application No. 10177808.
European Search Report dated Oct. 18, 2007 for Application No. 07252500.
European Search Report dated Oct. 4, 2006 for Application No. 06253277.
Israeli Office Action dated Dec. 14, 2009 for Application No. IL 175851.
Israeli Office Action dated Dec. 8, 2009 for Application No. IL 175828.
Japanese Office Action dated Apr. 25, 2011 for Application No. JP 2006-174171.
Japanese Office Action dated Dec. 14, 2006 for Application No. JP 2004-177065.
Japanese Office Action dated Feb. 23, 2011 for Application No. JP 2004-177065.
Japanese Office Action dated Feb. 28, 2013 for Application No. JP 2007-162956.
Japanese Office Action dated Jun. 25, 2010 for Application No. JP 2004-177065.
Japanese Office Action dated Jun. 8, 2012 for Application No. JP 2007-162956.
Japanese Office Action dated Nov. 8, 2011 for Application No. JP 2005-160203.
Japanese Office Action dated Sep. 29, 2011 for Application No. JP 2006-174158.
Korean Office Action dated Dec. 18, 2012 for Application No. KR 10-2006-0056843.
Korean Office Action dated Dec. 19, 2012 for Application No. KR 10-2006-0056844.
Korean Office Action dated Oct. 21, 2011 for Application No. KR 10-2005-0045990.
Mexican Office Action dated Mar. 30, 2007 for Application No. PA/A/2004/005756.
Mexican Office Action dated May 14, 2009 for Application No. PA/A/2006/007379.
Mexican Office Action dated Nov. 20, 2009 for Application No. PA/A/2006/007379.
Mexican Office Action dated Nov. 7, 2011 for Application No. PA/A/2005/005810.
Mexican Office Action dated Oct. 16, 2009 for Application No. MX/A/2007/007468.
Notice of Allowance dated Jan. 15, 2010 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/166,610.
Notice of Allowance dated Jul. 11, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 12/770,047.
Notice of Allowance dated May 16, 2011 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/166,625.
Notice of Allowance dated May 19, 2009 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/166,611.
Notice of Allowance dated Sep. 25, 2009 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/166,611.
Office Action dated Feb. 27, 2008 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/166,611.
Office Action dated Jul. 23, 2007 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/166,968.
Office Action dated Jul. 31, 2008 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/166,611.
Office Action dated Jun. 9, 2011 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/471,767.
Office Action dated Mar. 19, 2010 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/166,625.
Office Action dated Mar. 20, 2009 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/741,875.
Office Action dated Mar. 29, 2011 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/166,625.
Office Action dated Oct. 17, 2007 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/166,610.
Office Action dated Oct. 20, 2008 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/166,611.
Office Action dated Sep. 11, 2007 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/741,127.
Opposition Decision from the European Patent Office dated Feb. 4, 2011 for Application No. EP 06253277.
Partial European Search Report dated Aug. 4, 2009 for Application No. 08251093.
Partial European Search Report dated Sep. 27, 2006 for Application No. 06253283.
Response in Appeal of Opposition Decision from the European Patent Office dated Nov. 8, 2011 for Application No. EP 06253277.
Russian Office Action dated Apr. 28, 2010 for Application No. RU 2006122615.
Russian Office Action dated May 20, 2009 for Application No. RU 2005116666.
Russian Office Action for Application No. RU 2006122624/14 (024565).
Singaporean Office Action dated Oct. 31, 2007 for Application No. SG 200604117-2.
USPTO Notice of Allowance dated Mar. 6, 2013 for U.S. Appl. No. 12/966,236.

matches:
Application No. 06
Application No. 10177441
Application No. 10177808
Application No. 07252500
Application No. 06253277
Application No. 08251093
Application No. 06253283


TROOPER SAMUEL NASSAN, SGT. TERRENCE DONNELLY, LT. DAVID HECKMAN, CAPT. SHELDON EPTEIN, COMMISSIONER FRANK PAWLOWSKI, MAJOR TERRY SEILHAMER INTHEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, DEFENDANTS.
On April 1, 2009, plaintiffs filed the initial complaint. (Docket No. 1.) On August 26, 2009, Nassan filed a motion to dismiss the initial complaint. (Docket No. 19.) That same day, defendants Heckman, Epstein, Pawlowski, and Seilhamer filed a motion to dismiss the initial complaint. (Docket No. 21.) On November 19, 2009, this court held a hearing on the two motions to dismiss. At the hearing, the court also addressed a motion to strike scandalous pleadings filed on September 1, 2009 by plaintiffs. (Docket No. 23.) On the record, the court denied the motion to strike and granted the motions to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. On December 3, 2009, plaintiffs filed the amended complaint, and the pending motion for sanctions and the motions to dismiss followed.
Plaintiffs assert three counts in the amended complaint. Count one asserts a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Nassan or Donnelly used excessive deadly force on Nicholas Haniotakis, in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. (Id. ¶¶ 45-51.) Count two asserts a claim pursuant to § 1983, alleging that Pawlowski, Seilhamer, Epstein, and Heckman violated Nicholas Haniotakis's civil rights by acting with deliberate indifference to, or tacit authorization of, Nassan's illegal conduct. (Id. ¶¶ 52-59.) Count three asserts a state law claim of assault and battery against Nassan. (Id. ¶¶ 60-62.) The court will first discuss the motions to dismiss and then will consider the motion for sanctions.
The motion to dismiss filed by supervisory defendants also challenges the factual allegations. Supervisory defendants argue that plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts to establish their personal involvement in the violations of the constitutional rights of Nicholas Haniotakis.
A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 183 (3d Cir. 1993). In deciding a motion to dismiss, the court is not opining on whether the plaintiff will be likely to prevail on the merits; rather, when considering a motion to dismiss, the court accepts as true all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint and views them in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. U.S. Express Lines Ltd. v. Higgins, 281 F.3d 383, 388 (3d Cir. 2002). While a complaint does not need detailed factual allegations to survive a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (―Rule 12(b)(6)‖) motion to dismiss, a complaint must provide more than labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A ―formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.‖ Id. (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). ―Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level‖ and ―sufficient to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.‖ Id. ―A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.‖ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Id. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556) (internal citations omitted).
Two working principles underlie Twombly. Id. First, with respect to mere conclusory statements, a court need not accept as true all the allegations contained in a complaint. ―Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.‖ Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.) Second, to survive a motion to dismiss, a claim must state a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 1950. ―Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.‖ Id. (citing Iqbal v . Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2007)). ―But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged -- but it has not ‗show[n] -- that the pleader is entitled to relief.‖' Id. (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2)). A court considering a motion to dismiss may begin by identifying pleadings that are not entitled to the assumption of truth because they are mere conclusions.
While legal conclusions can provide the framework of the complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.
In ruling upon a motion to dismiss, a court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950. The court does not, however, have to accept the truth of ―legal conclusions couched as factual allegations‖ or ―‗[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.'‖ Donnelly v. O'Malley & Langan, PC, No. 09-3910, 2010 WL 925869, at *2 (3d Cir. Mar. 16, 2010) (quoting Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949); see Mays v. Truppo, No. 09-4772, 2010 WL 715362, at **2-3 (D.N.J. Feb. 22, 2010) (noting that the first ―working principle‖ set forth in Iqbal is that ―the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions‖).
In Iqbal, the Supreme Court analyzed the allegations of the complaint to determine whether any were not entitled to an assumption of truth. The Supreme Court held that the allegation that the defendant ―knew of, condoned, and willfully and maliciously agreed to subject [the plaintiff]‖ to harsh conditions of confinement ―as a matter of policy, solely on account of [his] religion, race, and/or national origin and for no legitimate penological interest‖ was ―conclusory and not entitled to be assumed true.‖ Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1951.
This court finds that all conclusions in the complaint that Nicholas Haniotakis was not a ―threat of harm‖ to the police officers are not entitled to be accepted by this court, because there are insufficient factual allegations to support the conclusion. In Pace v. Capobianco, 283 F.3d 1275, 1279-80 (11th Cir. 2002), the plaintiff's son was fatally shot by police officers moments after a high-speed automobile chase. Id. at 1276-78. The plaintiff sued, claiming that the use of deadly force violated her son's Fourth Amendment rights. The defendants moved for summary judgment. Id. at 1281. In response, the plaintiff argued that a statement in an affidavit of a witness, which provided ―[a]t no time did the [plaintiff's] car appear to be a threat to any officer on the scene,‖ created a an issue of material fact whether the plaintiff posed an immediate threat of serious physical harm to the defendants at the time the defendants shot the plaintiff. Id. at 1279-80. The district court agreed with plaintiff, but the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that this statement was not entitled to the court's acceptance, stating that the ―conclusory opinion is inadequate to create an issue of fact about the objective danger . . . .‖ Id. at 1281. The court of appeals noted the statement was not supported by sufficient facts to be worthy of credence. Id. at 1280-81.
Although Pace was decided upon a motion for summary judgment, the court believes the same principles would apply given that the statement in Pace was virtually identical to the allegations presented in the amended complaint here. Without sufficient factual allegations to support such conclusions in plaintiffs' amended complaint, the court cannot accept the conclusions for purposes of analyzing the pending motions to dismiss.
To the extent that supervisory defendants contend that a number of factual allegations in the amended complaint should be re-characterized as legal conclusions not worthy of credence under Iqbal, the court will address those contentions when discussing supervisory defendants' motion to dismiss.
In ruling upon a motion to dismiss, a district court generally is ―not permitted to go beyond the facts alleged in the [c]omplaint.‖ In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1424-25 (3d Cir. 1997). Despite the general rule that a district court is limited to the four corners of a complaint in analyzing a motion to dismiss filed pursuant Rule 12(b)(6), a district court may look beyond the complaint and address the motion as one requesting summary judgment. A district court has ―discretion to address evidence outside the complaint when ruling on a motion to dismiss.‖ Pryor v. NCAA, 288 F.3d 548, 559 (3d Cir. 2006). ―The court is not permitted to look at matters outside the record; if such matters are considered, the [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is, by the express terms of [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 12(b), converted into a motion for summary judgment.‖ Id. at 560. Certain limited types of evidence, however, may be considered by a district court upon a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. The court may take judicial notice of matters of public record without effecting such a conversion. Anspach ex rel. Anspach v. City of Phila., 503 F.3d 256, 273 n.11 (3d Cir. 2007). Matters of public record that the court may take judicial notice of are those facts ―capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.‖ FED. R. EVID. 201(b)(2); see Oran v. Stafford, 226 F.3d 275, 289 (3d Cir. 2000).
Nassan attached seven exhibits to his motion to dismiss the original complaint. (See Docket No. 20, Exs. A-G.) These exhibits are alleged to be matters of public record. (See Mot. to Dismiss Hr'g Tr. (Docket No. 82) 27-30, Nov. 19, 2009.) Among these exhibits are a criminal complaint filed in 2005 against Nicholas Haniotakis in an unrelated case. (Docket No. 20, Ex. D). That complaint concerned the alleged use by Nicholas Haniotakis of a vehicle to assault a police officer. (Id.) An autopsy report and other records from the Allegheny County Office of the Medical Examiner related to the death of Nicholas Haniotakis (id., Ex. E), and petitions for protection from abuse (id., Exs. F, G) were also attached as exhibits.


text:
The objective of the J. E. Purkyně Fellowship is to attract outstanding creative scientists from abroad to work in research institutes of the Czech Academy of Sciences, both Czech scientists working abroad for a long-time period and top foreign scientists, usually under forties, that are to be ensured adequate financial evaluation at CAS Institutes. The Fellowship is granted for a maximum of five years. Applications for the J. E. Purkyně Fellowship are submitted by the directors of the Institutes of the CAS after consultation with and on the basis of a recommendation by the Institute Board. Applications were accepted until 2017.
Dr. Héctor Vazquez Melis – nominated by the Institute of Physics of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research focused on the area of nanoelectronics and nanomaterials, for the period of five years.
Mgr. Martin Friák, Ph.D., nominated by the Institute of Physics of Materials of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research focused on the most innovative trends in multilevel modeling structure and properties of advanced materials, for the period of five years.
Mgr. Marek Kapička, Ph.D., nominated by the Economics Institute of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research focused on macroeconomics and public economics, for the period of five years.
prof. George Pavlakos, Ph.D., LL.M., nominated by the Institute of State and Law of the CAS, v. v. i., for the scientific activities aimed at expansion of research in the field of jurisprudence from the national to the international level, for the period of three years.
Mgr. Dr. phil. Tomasz Derlatka, nominated by the Institute of Slavonic Studies of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research focused on west Slavonic 20th century novel, for the period of five years.
Jan Jansa, PhD, nominated by the Institute of Microbiology of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research focused on studying soil micro-organisms, community of mycorrhizal fungi with associated microflora, for the period of five years.
Mag. Dr. phil. Alexander Kratochvíl, nominated by the Institute of the Czech Literature of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research focused on elaborating the theory of memory in the context of the Czech literature studies, for the period of four years.
Prof. Ladislav Kvasz, Dr., nominated by the Institute of Philosophy of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research focused on the development of method of phylosophical analysis of key changes in the development of algebra and geometry and their systematic application in further fields of mathematics, in the development of physics and also for key issues of philosophy, science and theory of recognition, for the period of five years.
Jakub Steiner, M. A.,PhD, nominated by the Economics Institute of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research focused on analysis of the coordination of issues and strategic behaviour of economic agents in situations requiring coordination at different conditions., for the period of five years.
Jan Honolka, PhD, nominated by the Institute of Physics of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research focused on nanoelectronics, nanomaterials and spirotronics, for the period of five years.
Kvido Stříšovský, PhD, nominated by the Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research focused on new issues in the field of the study of the intramembrane protease, from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2015.
Dr. Jörg Wunderlich, nominated by the Institute of Physics of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research in the field of spirotronics, nanoelectronics, optoelectronics, from June 1, 2010 to May 31, 2015.
Michail Kotsyfakis, PhD, nominated by the Biology Centre of the CAS, v. v. i., to launch a new laboratory focused on genomics and proteomics of tick salivary glads rendering indentification of molecules facilitating transfer of pathogens (e.g. initiator of Lyme borreliosis and tick-borne encephalitis virus), from September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2014.
Dr. rer. nat. Lukáš Palatinus, nominated by the Institute of Physics of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research activities in the framework of the Project of Electron Difractometer, from October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2014.
Leo Eisner, PhD, nominated by the Institute of Rock Structure and Mechanics of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research in the field of induced seismicity with theoretic and practical applications, from August 1, 2010 to July 31, 2014.
Marek Cebecauer, PhD, nominated by the J. Heyrovsky Institute of Physical Chemistry of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research focused on utilization of accurate methods of physical chemistry on a cell level in biomedicine disciplines, from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2014.
Cyril Bařinka PhD, nominated by the Institute of Biotechnology of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research especially in the field of the structural biology and the structure-function relationship of proteins relevant in medicine, from March 1, 2010 to February 28, 2014.
Martin Anger, D.V: M:, PhD, nominated by the Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics of the CAS, v. v. i, to establish work team that will research mammal meioza via top microscopic methods, from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2013.
Oleg Heczko, PhD, nominated by the Institute of Physics of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research focused on the development of new interdisciplinary programme of the investigation of alloys with magnetic shape memory (MSM) and magnetocaloric effect, from October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2013.
Alexandr Kromka, PhD, nominated by the Institute of Physics of the CAS, v. v. i., to establish and to a guide research interdisciplinary team in the area of nanotechnology (development of diamond and carbon nanostructures), from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2013.
Jan Kuneš, PhD, nominated by the Institute of Physics of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research focused on leading the Spectroscopy of Magnetic Oxides Group and to initiate international cooperation in the field of theoretical solid state physics, and the development of dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT), from September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2014.
Igor V. Bartish, PhD, nominated by the Institute of Botany of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research focused on the development of population genetics and the guidance of a team working on quantitative population genetic analysis in the department of genetic ecology, from March 1, 2009 to February 28, 2014.
Filip Lankaš, PhD, nominated by the Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research focused on the extension of theoretical research of DNA and RNA structures from atomic level to supra-atomic level up to mezoscopic level, from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2012.
Tomáš Vomastek, PhD, nominated by the Institute of Microbiology of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research focused especially on the study of the role of the ERK pathway and ERK pathway scaffold RACK1 in regulation of cell motility and proliferation, from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2012.
Jindřich Zapletal, PhD, DSc., nominated by the Institute of Mathematics of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research focused on establishing a team researching Boolean algebra and team researching modern set theory, from January 1, to December 31, 2013.
Petr Svoboda, PhD, nominated by the Institute of Molecular Genetics of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research focused especially on the development of transgenic RNAi, the analysis material mRNA degradation and mentoring students in the Institute, from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2011.
Radislav Sedláček, PhD, Dr. rer.nat. habil., nominated by the Institute of Molecular Genetics of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research focused especially on establishing transgenic unit and the production of mice with gene deficiency, from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2012.
Pavel Izák, PhD, nominated by the Institute of Chemical Process Fundamentals of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research to introduce issues of fixed iont membranes and to reinforce the potential of the research team of the Institute, from February 1, 2007 to January 31, 2012.
David Sedmera, M.D., PhD, nominated by the Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research focused on cell mechanisms for the prenatal treatment of inborn cardio defects and on mechanisms of the induction and the differentiation of the heart transfer system, from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2010.
Tomáš Kruml, PhD., nominated by the Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research focused especially on mechanical properties and structure of extremely thin layers on the margin of nano- and submicron area for applications in microelectronics and microtechnology, from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2010.
RNDr. Bohuslav Rezek, PhD, nominated by the Institute of Physics of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research focused especially on the progress of nanotechnologies in the field of interfaces of semi-conducting thin film materials with organic molecules and structures with practical bio-applications, from April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2011.
Štěpán Sklenák, PhD, nominated by the J. Heyrovsky Institute of Physical Chemistry of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research focused on quantum chemistry in the field of the theory of catalysis , from July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2009.
Michal Fárník, PhD, nominated by the J. Heyrovsky Institute of Physical Chemistry of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research focused on the clusters structure and the dynamics in molecular beams with Spectroscopic methods, from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2009.
Leoš Valášek, PhD, nominated by the Institute of Microbiology of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research focused on the mechanisms and the regulation of the cell differentiation in the Laboratory of Cell Reproduction of the Institute of Microbiology of the CAS, v. v. i, from June1, 2004 to May 31, 2009.
Dr. Ludger Hagedorn, nominated by the Institute of Philosophy of the CAS, v. v. i., for the research of the philosophical legacy of Jan Patočka, the promotion of the international recognition of the Czech philosophy and cultural ideas, from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2009.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. V. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
"Small Business Development Center at a University is an engine for economic growth via tech based businesses."
"A short course: MECHANICS OF CARBON NANOTUBES (On July 3, in Budapest, and on July 10, in Krakow,) http://ning.it/xR7wp1 Contact to register"
V. M. Harik, 2011, Mechanics of Carbon Nanotubes, Nanodesigns Press (Nanodesigns Consulting, Newark, Delaware).
Science and Engineering, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 2004.
V. M. Harik and M. D. Salas (eds.), Trends in Nanoscale Mechanics: Analysis of Nanostructured Materials and Multi-Scale Modeling, vol. 9, ICASE/NASA Langley Interdisciplinary Series in Science and Engineering, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 2003.
V. M. Harik, Mechanics of Carbon Nanotubes, Course Notes, ASME Cont. Educ. Institut., 2001; 2nd Edition, 2002, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY.
Effects. Chapter 2, in Micromechanics and Nanoscale Effects (ed. V. M. Harik and L.-S. Luo), vol. 10, ICASE/NASA Langley Interdisciplinary Series in Science and Engineering, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 2004.
B. Diskin and V. M. Harik, Efficient Multigrid Methods for Viscous Processing Flows with Small Particles, Chapter 5, in Micromechanics and Nanoscale Effects: MEMS, Multi-Scale Materials and Micro-Flows (ed. V. M. Harik and L.-S. Luo), vol. 10, ICASE/NASA Langley Interdisciplinary Series in Science and Engineering, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 2004.
S. J. V. Frankland and V. M. Harik, Analysis of Carbon Nanotube Pull-Out from a Polymer Matrix, Surface Science Letters (an International Journal), v. 525, pp. L103-L108, 2003.
V. M. Harik, Nanostructured Interphases and Multi-Scale Effects in the Forming of Composite Micro-Rods, Int. J. Multiscale Computational Engineering, v. 1 (1), pp. 105-113, 2003.
S. J. V. Frankland, V. M. Harik, G. M. Odegard, D. W. Brenner and T. S. Gates, The Stress-Strain Behavior of Polymer-Nanotube Composites from Molecular Dynamics Simulations, Composites Science and Technology (an International Journal), v. 63 (11), pp. 1655-1661, 2003.
V. M. Harik, Mechanics of Carbon Nanotubes: Applicability for the Continuum-Beam Models, Computational Materials Science (an International Journal), v. 24(3), pp. 328-342, 2002.
S. J. V. Frankland and V. M. Harik, Simulation of Carbon Nanotube Pull-out when Bonded to a Polymer Matrix, MRS Symposium Proceedings, v. 740, pp. I12.1.1-5, 2002.
V. M. Harik, T. S. Gates and M. P. Nemeth, Applicability of the Classical Shell Theories to the Mechanics of Carbon Nanotubes, Proceed. 43rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC SSDM Conf., AIAA Paper 2002-1429, April 22-25, Denver, CO, pp. 1-10, 2002.
S. J. V. Frankland and V. M. Harik, Analysis of Carbon Nanotube Pull-Out from a Polymer Matrix, MRS Symposium Proceedings, v. 733E, pp. T6.2.1-T6.2.6, 2002.
V. M. Harik, Ranges of Applicability of the Continuum Beam Model in the Mechanics of Carbon Nanotubes, Solid State Communications (an International Journal), v. 120, pp. 331-335, 2001.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. v. V. v. V. V. v. V. v. V. V. v. V. V. V. v. V. v.


Pastor v. Torre Tile Distributors, Inc.
The claimant was pro se and did not appear at oral argument.
The respondents were represented by Theodore M. Pappas, Esq., Law Offices of Scott B. Clendaniel, 300 Windsor Street, P.O. Box 2138, Hartford, Connecticut 06145-2138.
This Petition for Review from the February 13, 2003 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Eighth District was heard September 26, 2003 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners James J. Metro and Stephen B. Delaney.
JOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. The claimant has petitioned for review from the February 13, 2003 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Eighth District. The claimant has failed to file a Motion to Correct or a brief. In addition, the claimant did not appear at oral argument before this board and has not contacted the clerk’s office regarding his failure to appear.
Claimant has neglected to actively pursue his appeal. We dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1. See Palko v. State/Dept. of Correction, 4018 CRB-2-99-3 (March 22, 2000); Silva v. Allied Signal/Bendix, 3794 CRB-5-98-4 (June 15, 1999); Dubret v. Fairfield/Police Dept., 3495 CRB-4-96-12 (April 1, 1998); Ayres v. United Methodist Homes of CT, 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 193, 3207 CRB-4-95-10, 3294 CRB-4-96-3 (May 20, 1997).


LAURENS COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; DANIEL LAMPP, Deputy Sheriff; STEVEN CADY, Deputy Sheriff; SHERRY MANGUM, Deputy Sheriff; WILSON BUSH, Deputy Sheriff; and DEIDRE BYRD, Investigator, Defendants.
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Georgia Diagnostic & Classification State Prison in Jackson, Georgia, commenced the above-captioned case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding events alleged to have occurred in Laurens County, Georgia. Because he is proceeding IFP, Plaintiff's amended complaint must be screened to protect potential defendants. Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782, 785 (11th Cir. 1984); Al-Amin v. Donald, 165 F. App'x 733, 736 (11th Cir. 2006).
Plaintiff names as Defendants (1) Laurens County Sheriff Department; (2) Daniel Lampp; (3) Wilson Bush; (4) Deidre Byrd; (5) Steven Cady; and (6) Sherry Mangum. (Doc. no. 7, pp. 2-5.) Taking all of Plaintiff's factual allegations as true, as the Court must for purposes of the present screening, the facts are as follows.
Liberally construing Plaintiff's allegations in his favor and granting him the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be derived from the facts alleged, the Court finds Plaintiff has arguably stated viable individual capacity claims under § 1983 for violations of the Fourth Amendment, as well as related common law claims for false arrest and imprisonment, against Defendants Lampp, Byrd, Cady, Mangum, and Bush. See Kingsland v. City of Miami, 382 F.3d 1220, 1226 (11th Cir. 2004) (“A warrantless arrest without probable cause violates the Constitution and provides a basis for a section 1983 claim.”); Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding plaintiff may maintain § 1983 action for unlawful search even if followed by conviction); Campbell v. Johnson, 586 F.3d 835, 840 (11th Cir. 2009) (“A § 1983 claim of false imprisonment requires a showing of common law false imprisonment and a due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment.”); Townsend v. Coffee Cty., Ga., 854 F.Supp.2d 1345, 1355 (S.D. Ga. 2011) (“Plaintiff asserts both unreasonable seizure and excessive force claims against Defendant Grantham under § 1983, properly invoking the Fourth Amendment.”). In a companion Report and Recommendation, the Court recommends dismissal of Defendant Laurens County Sheriff Department, Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief, and Plaintiff's official capacity claims against remaining Defendants.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that service of process shall be effected on Defendants. The United States Marshal shall mail a copy of the amended complaint (doc. no. 7) and this Order by first-class mail and request that the defendants waive formal service of the summons. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d). Individual defendants have a duty to avoid unnecessary costs of serving the summons, and if a defendant fails to comply with the request for waiver, the defendant must bear the costs of personal service unless good cause can be shown for failure to return the waiver. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(2). A defendant whose return of the waiver is timely does not have to answer the complaint until sixty days after the date the Marshal mails the request for waiver. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(3). However, service must be effected within 90 days of the date of this Order, and the failure to do so may result in the dismissal of any unserved defendant or the entire case. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). Plaintiff is responsible for providing sufficient information for the Marshal to identify and locate the defendant to effect service.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve upon the defendants, or upon their defense attorney if appearance has been entered by counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document submitted to the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the papers to be filed a certificate stating the date a true and correct copy of any document was mailed to the defendants or their counsel. Fed.R.Civ.P. 5; Loc. R. 5.1. Every pleading shall contain a caption setting forth the name of the court, the title of the action, and the file number. Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(a). Any paper received by a District Judge or Magistrate Judge that has not been properly filed with the Clerk of Court or that fails to include a caption or certificate of service will be returned.
It is Plaintiff's duty to cooperate fully in any discovery that may be initiated by the defendants. Upon being given at least five days notice of the scheduled deposition date, Plaintiff shall appear and permit his deposition to be taken and shall answer, under oath and solemn affirmation, any question that seeks information relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. Failing to answer questions at the deposition or giving evasive or incomplete responses to questions will not be tolerated and may subject Plaintiff to severe sanctions, including dismissal of this case. The defendants shall ensure that Plaintiff's deposition and any other depositions in the case are taken within the 140-day discovery period allowed by this Court's Local Rules.
While this action is pending, Plaintiff shall immediately inform this Court and opposing counsel of any change of address. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this case.
Plaintiff must pursue this case; if Plaintiff does not press the case forward, the Court may dismiss it for want of prosecution. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41; Loc. R. 41.1. If Plaintiff wishes to obtain facts and information about the case from the defendants, Plaintiff must initiate discovery. See generally Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 through 37 (containing the rules governing discovery and providing for the basic methods of discovery). Plaintiff should begin discovery promptly and complete it within four months after the filing of the last answer of a defendant named in the complaint screened herein.
Interrogatories are a practical method of discovery for pro se litigants. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 33. Interrogatories shall not contain more than twenty-five questions. Id. Plaintiff must have the Court's permission to propound more than one set of interrogatories to a party. Discovery materials should not be filed routinely with the Clerk of the Court; exceptions include when the Court directs filing; when a party needs such materials in connection with a motion or response, and then only to the extent necessary; and when needed for use at trial. If Plaintiff wishes to file a motion to compel pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37, he should first contact the attorney for the defendants and try to work out the problem; if Plaintiff proceeds with the motion to compel, he should also file a statement certifying that he has contacted opposing counsel in a good faith effort to resolve any dispute about discovery. Loc. R. 26.5.