RECE{VED

IttAR
1g 10

OFFICE OF THB ATTORNBY GBNERAL

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Lisa Madigan
ATTORNEYGENERAL

M a r c h1 6 .2 0 1 0

Mr.DavidNelson

Harrisburg,
lllinois62946

Re: ArnulfoFonsecav. Nelson,et al.

USDC-SD lL No.08-435

DearMr.Nelson:

Enclosed pleasefindan orderdenyingthe motionto reconsider theordergranting

the summary judgment filedby Dr. LeVaughn; an ordergrantingsummary judgmentin
and
favorof theSalineCountydefendants declining to exercise supplementaljurisdiction
overthe State-lawclaims;anda judgmentin yourfavoron the federalclaims.At thetime
the motionfor summary judgment was filedon yourbehalf,the onlyremaining claims
againstyou werethe State-law claimsof intentional
inflictionof emotionaldistressand
defamation.

Theplaintiff
mayattemptto revivetheseState-law
claimsbyfilinginthecircuitcourt.
Shouldhe do so,youwouldbeservedwitha summons andcopyof thecomplaint. lf you
wantrepresentation you
fromouroffice, willneedto makeanotherrequest.

pleasedo not hesitate

lf you haveanyquestions, to contactme at (217)782-1841
or by electronicmailto kmcnaught@atg.state.il.us.

yours,
Sincerely

KarenL. McNaught
Assistant
AttorneyGeneral

Enclosures
cc: MichaelHinshaw
w/ enclosures

Illinois 62706 . (?17)782-1090. TTY (877)844-5461. Fax:(?17)j8Z-7046

500SouthSecondStreet,Springfield,
100WestRandolphStreer,Chicago,Illinois 60601 . (312)814-3000. TTY: (800)964-3013r Fax:(312)814-3806
Illinois 62901. (618)529-6400. TTY (877)675-9339. Fax:(618)5?9-6416
1001EastMain,Carbondale, .iI+6
 Case3:08-cv-00435-CJP 215 Filed03/16/10Page1 of 3
Document
IN THEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
FORTHESOUTHERN DISTzuCTOFILLINOIS

ARNULFO FONSECA. )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
) CivilNo. 08-435-CJP
)
CHARLES DAVID NELSON,et al., )
)
Defendants, )

ORDER

PROUD,MagistrateJudge:

Beforethe Courtis Plaintiff s Motion to Reconsider

the Court'sMemorandumandOrder

of September
10,2009.@oc.197).

the ordergrantingdefendant
Plaintiffasksthe Courtto reconsider Mark LeVaughn's

motionfor summaryjudgment,enteredon September

10,2009,anddocketedat Doc. 182.

Thatorderwasenteredby DistrictJudgeReagan,andit disposedof all claimsagainst

theremainingpartiesconsented
LeVaughn.Thereafter, to final dispositionby the undersigned.

JudgeReagan'sordergrantedsummaryjudgmentin favorof LeVaughnon the lasttwo

claimspendingagainsthim, i.e.,thathe intentionallyinflictedemotionaldistressby fabricating

testimonyat plaintiff s murdertrial regardingAshleighMiller's causeof death,andthathe

with othersto convictplaintiffof chargesthatwere"unsupported

conspired by the evidence."

On theintentionalinflictionof emotionaldistressclaim,JudgeReaganconcludedthatLeVaughn

wasentitledto absoluteimmunitybecause
the claimwasbasedsolelyon his in-courttestimony.

On thecivil conspiracyclaim,JudgeReaganfoundthatplaintiff hadnot presented

anyevidence

judgmentstageto demonstrate
at the summary an agreement,
which is a necessary
elementof the

conspiracy
claim.
 Case 3:08-cv-00435-CJPDocument215 Filed03/16/10 Page 2 of 3
Plaintiffnow askstheCourtto reconsider
JudgeReagan'sorderbecause,
accordingto

plaintiff,JudgeReaganmisreadtheevidenceasto theemotionaldistressclaimandappliedthe

wronglegalstandard
regarding of provingan agreement
thenecessity aspartof a conspiracy

claim.

. The reassignment
ofthis caseto a differentjudgedoesnot presentan open-ended

opportunityfor thepartiesto revisitdecisions

that havealreadybeenmade. In fact,the rule is

quitethe opposite;the"law of thecase"doctrinecreatesa presumption

that"earlierrulingswill

stand."Bestv. Shell Oil Co., 107F.3d 544, 546(7th Cir,l997). This doctrine"reflectsthe

rightful expectation
of litigantsthata changeofjudgesmidwaythrougha casewill not mean

going backto squareone." Mendenhallv. Mueller StreamlineCo., 419F.3d 686, 691 (7'hCir.

2O05)(internal
citation omitted). Thus,reconsideration
of a previousruling is authorizedonly
"if thereis a compellingreason,suchas change
a in, or clarificationof, law thatmakesclearthat

the earlierrulingwaserroneous."Ssntamarinav. Sears,Roebuck& Co,,466F.3d 5701571-

ajudgeis not freeto reconsider

572(7'hCir. 2006). Conversely, a priorjudge'sdecision
"merelybecause
he hasa differentview of the law or the factsfrom the firstjudge."Best,107

F.3d at 546(internal citationomitted).

Plaintiffpointsto no compellingreasonfor reconsideration

of JudgeReagan'sprevious

order. He hasnot presented

anychangein the law or anyclarificationof the law that makesit

clearthatJudgeReagan'srulingwasin error.

For the foregoingreasons,

Plaintiff s Motion to Reconsider
the Court'sMemorandum

10,2009(Doc.197)is DENIED.
andOrderof September

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: March 16,2010.

s/ Clifford J. Proud
CLIFFORD J. PROUD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2
 215 Filed03/16/10Page3 of 3
Document
Case3:08-cv-00435-CJP
 216 Filed03/16/10 Page1 of 9
Document
Case3:08-cv-00435-CJP

IN THEI.INITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
FORTHESOUTHERN DISTRICTOFILLINOIS

ARNULFO FONSECA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CivilNo. 08-435-CJP
)
CIIARLES DAVID NELSON,et al., )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORAITIDUM and ORDER

PROUD, MagistrateJudge:

Motion for SummaryJudgment.(Doc. 117). The

BeforetheCourtis Defendants'

Keith Brown,Ken Clore,RandyButler,Mike Jones,

motionis filed on behalfof defendants

ToddFort, SteveSloan,MonaNelson,SalineCounfy,Sheriffs Office of SalineCounty,andthe

BradNeal andDavid Blazieralsojoined

State'sAttorney'sOfficeof SalineCounty. Defendants

in the motion,but they,alongwith the Village of CanierMills, weredismissedon plaintiff s

motionon June26,2009. See,Doc. 148. Thus,themotionfor summaryjudgmentis broughton

in this case,with theexceptionof defendantCharlesDavid

behalfof all remainingdefendants

Nelson.

to themotionat Doc. 136. Defendants

Plaintiff filed a response thenfiled a replyat Doc.

151.

Nature of Plaintiffs Claim

The Courtfirst notesthatthe operativecomplaintis the FourthAmendedComplaint,

Doc. 163. The FourthAmendedComplaintwasfiled in response

to JudgeReagan'sorders

directingsameasa matterof housekeeping.

See,Docs.156,158,and 162. It wasclearlythe
 216 Filed03/16/10Page2 of 9
Document
Case3:08-cv-00435-CJP

intentionof JudgeReaganandof thepartiesthatthe previously-filed

dispositivemotions,

asrefering to the complaintasamended.See,Doc. 129.

includingthis one,be construed

long-timegirlfriend,AshleighMiller, was injuredon May 28,

PlaintiffArnulfo Fonseca's

2007. Shediedasa resultof thoseinjurieson June6,2007.Accordingto FourthAmended

"shefell out of the carhe wasdriving." Doc. 163,

Complaint,Miller sufferedthe injurieswhen

waschargedwith aggravated
!f18. On June4, 2007,Fonseca drivingwith a
DUI, aggravated

justice,andfailingto reporta personalinjury accident.He was

revokedlicense,obstructing

on bond. Doc.163,!f19.
released

waschargedwith two countsof first-degree

On June13,2007,Fonseca murderarising

tumedhimselfinto RandyButler,"the arestingoffrcerfor

out of Ms. Miller's death.Fonseca

the SalineCounty Sheriff s Department,pursuantto an arrestwarrant"that hadbeensignedby

JudgeWaldenE. Morris. Doc. 163,tlt[20'2f.

a preliminaryhearingon July 5,2007,anddetermined

JudgeMorris conducted thatthere

wasprobablecauseto proceedon two countsof first-degree

murder.Doc. 163,!f24. Bondwas

setat onemillion dollars.Plaintiffwasunableto makebond,andremainedin jail until trial.

Doc. 163,127. On April 8, 2008,a jury foundhim not guilty on bothmurdercounts.Doc. 1630

n26.
The FourthAmendedComplaintconsistsof 11 counts.In CountsI through5, plaintiff

sues under42 U.S.C.$1983for variousviolationsof his rightsunderthe UnitedStates

Constitution.Counts6 through1l allegeonly statelaw claims.

Standardfor SummaryJudgment
 216 Filed03/16/10Page3 of 9
Document
Case3:08-cv-00435-CJP

judgmentis appropriate
Summary wherethe pleadings,
the discoveryanddisclosure

materialson file, andanyaffidavitsshowthatthereis no genuineissueof materialfact andthat

the movingpartyis entitledto judgmentasa matterof law. Estateof Suskovichv. Anthem

HealthPlansof Virginia,Inc.,553F.3d559,563 (7'hCir. 2009), citingFed.R. Civ. P. 56(c).

Accord,Breneisenv, Motorola,lnc.,512 F.3d 972(7'hCir. Cir. 2008XLevy v. MinnesotaLife

Ins. Co.,5l7 F.3d519(7'hCir. 2008).

In rulingon a summaryjudgmentmotion,the Courtconstrues

all factsandreasonable

in thelight mostfavorableto thenon-movingparty(here,Plaintiff). Lloyd v. Swifty

inferences

Transp.,Inc,,552F.3d 594,600 (7'hCir.2009); TASDistributingCo.,Inc, v. Cummins

Engine Co.,1nc.,491F.3d 625,630(7'hCir. 2007);Reynoldsv. Jamison,488F.3d 756,764

(7'hCir. 2007).

to summaryjudgment,thenon-movantcannotreston his pleadings.Rather,

In response

mustprovideevidenceon whichthejury or courtcouldfind in ftrsfavor.Maclin

the non-movant

v. SBCAmeritech,s20F.3d 781,786(7'bCir. 2008). As the SeventhCircuitrecently

explained:

[T]henon-movingpartymustsubmitevidencethatthereis a genuineissuefor trial.

Fed.R. Civ. P. 56(e);Ptasznikv. St.Joseph Hosp.,464F.3d 691,694(7'hCir. 2006).
Theexistence of merelya scintillaof evidencein supportof thenon-movingparfy's
positionis insufficient;theremustbe evidenceon which thejury couldreasonablyfind
for thenonmovingparty.

GiantScreenSportsv. CanadianImperial Bank of Commerce,553F.3d527,531-32

(7'hCir.2009).

Statedanotherway, to countera summaryjudgmentmotion,the nonmovingparty may

containedin his pleadings;moresubstantial

not simplyreiteratetheallegations evidencemustbe
 Case3:08-cv-00435-CJP
Document
216 Filed03/16/10 Page4 of 9

And a genuineissueof materialfact is not shownby the mereexistenceof "some

presented.

allegedfactualdisputebetweentheparties,?'
Andersonv, LibertyLobby,Inc,, 477 U,5.242,247

(1986),or "somemetaphysicaldoubtasto the materialfacts,"MatsushitaElec. Indus. Co. v.

ZenithRadio Corp.,475U.S. 574,586(1986). Rather,a genuineissueof materialfact exists

only if "a fair-mindedjury couldreturna verdictfor the [non-movingparty]on the evidence

presented."
I nderson,477U.S,at 252.

Analysis

Count I is for violationof plaintiff s FourthAmendmentrights by falseanestand

imprisonment.This claimis directedto all of the movingdefendants

exceptfor MonaNelson.
"took steps"to arresthim andkeephim
Plaintiffallegesin this countthatdefendants

awaitingtrial "withoutjustification." He allegesthattherewas a lack of probable

incarcerated

"no reasonable
causefor his arrestbecause personcouldhavelookedat the evidenceavailable"

andconcludedthattherewasprobablecauseto supportthe chargeof first-degree

murder.He

furtherallegesthathe wouldnothavebeensubjected
to sucha high bondhadthe defendants
not

chargedhim with sucha seriouscrime.Doc. 163,ut} 28-30.

It mustfirst be notedthatSection1983is not the sourceof any substantive

rights;rather,

the statuteprovidesa vehiclefor "vindicatingfederalrightselsewhere

confened."Albright v.

Oliver,f 14 S. Ct. 807,811(1994).Thus,for plaintiff to maintainan actionunderSection1983,

he mustestablishthat someconstitutional
right hasbeeninfringedby defendants,Ibid

The SeventhCircuit"hasconsistently
held thattheexistence
of probablecausefor an

arresttotallyprecludesanysection1983claimfor unlawfularrest,falseimprisonment,
or

maliciousprosecution, of whetherthe defendants

regardless hadmaliciousmotivesfor arresting
 Case3:08-cv-00435-CJP
Document
216 Filed03/16/10 Page5 of 9

theplaintiff."Markv. Furay,769F.2d1266,1269
(7thcir. l9s5). Seealso,schertzv.

IlaupacaCounty,875F.2d 578 (7'hCir. 1989).

This is not a caseof a wanantlessanest. Plaintiff was anestedpursuantto a warrant

issuedby JudgeMorris. Doc. 163,T21. A "plaintiff generallycannotbasea FourthAmendment

claimon an arrestmadepursuantto a valid warrant." ll'hitlock v. Brownr 20f 0 WL62 4307,*3

(7'hCir. February 24,2010\.

Plaintiff hasnot madean argumentthat the arrestwarrantwas invalid on its face. Rather,

he arguesthattherewasno probablecausefor its issuance.However,the validity of the warrant

andof the informationrelieduponto issuethe warrantarepresumed.Whitlock,id.. The

of validitycanbe overcomeby a showingthata defendant"knowinglyor

presumption

intentionallyor with a recklessdisregard to thejudicial

for the truth,madefalsestatements

officer,andthat the falsestatements to thejudicial officer's determinations

were necessary that

probablecauseexistedfor the anests." Beauchampv. City of Noblesville,lnd.,320 F.3d 733,

742(7'hCir. 2003). Plaintiffhasnot evenattempted

to makesucha showinghere.

Fonseca's to themotionfor summaryjudgmentis devoidof any evidenceto

response

the presumption
overcome of the validityof thewarrant,andhis FourthAmendmentclaim

thereforefails. Plaintifls only argumentis thatthe lackof probablecause"is apparentfrom the

laterpreliminary
hearingwhichcontains
no evidence
of [sic]thatAshleighMiller wasever

struck,muchlessthatPlaintiffstruckher." Doc. 136,pp.2-3. Thewarrantwasissuedby Judge

Morrison June13,2007,andthepreliminaryhearingdid not takeplaceuntil July 5, 2007. See,

Doc..163,t|l[21 & 24. Obviously,an argumentaboutevidencepresented

at alaterpreliminary

hearingdoesnothingto overcome
thepresumption
of the validityof thewarrant.
7

Case3:08-cv-00435-CJP
Document
216 Filed03/16/10Page6 of 9

Counts2,3, 4 and5 all allegeviolationof Fonseca's

FourteenthAmendmentDue

Process
rights.

allegesa dueprocessviolation"akin to maliciousprosecution"

In Count2, Fonseca

basedon his claimthattherewasno probablecauseto prosecute

him for first-degree
murder.

He cannotpursuea maliciousprosecution
claimunderthedueprocessclause.The dueprocess

clause"doesnot supporta constitutional

tort of maliciousprosecutionif statelaw providesa

parallelremedy."Johnsonv.Saville,s7sF.3d 656,663(7'hCir.2009),citingNewsomev.

McCabe,256F.3d 747,751(7'hCir.2001). Seealso,Avilav. Pappas,59lF.3d552,553-554

(7'hCir. 2010); Parishv. City af Chicago,594F.3d 551,552 (7'hCir. 2009)("Seventh

Circuit

preeedent
doesnot permitan actionfor maliciousprosecution
under$1983if a stateremedy

exists,").Illinois law providesa remedyfor maliciousprosecution.Swickv. Liautaud,662

N.E.2d 1238,1242(1996).Therefore,
plaintiff s claimfor maliciousprosecution
cannotbe

pursuedunderSection1983asit doesnot statea constitutional

violation.

For similarreasons, areentitledto summaryjudgmenton Count4, which

defendants

againrelatesto theallegedlack of probablecause.Plaintiffarguesthat Count4 is "essentiallya

claimagainstthe Stateof Illinoisthroughoneof its constitutional

officers[the State's

Attorney.]" Accordingto plaintiff,the basisof this claim is that"determiningprobablecause

withouttheuseof a grandjury is completelyinadequate

to ensurehis UnitedStates

rights"protectinghim from arrestandtrial withoutprobablecause.Doc. 136,pp.

Constitutional

7-8.

First,the dueprocessclausedoesnot protecta "right to be freeof prosecution

without

probablecause."Albrightv. Oliver,,l14S. Ct. 807,812(1994\. "The Fourteenth

Amendment
7

Case3:08-cv-00435-CJP 216 Filed03/16/10Page7 of g

Document

doesnot protectagainstall deprivations

of liberty. It protectsonly againstdeprivations
of liberty
'withoutdueprocess
accomplished of law."' Baker v. McCollan,99 S. Ct.2689, at2695

(re7e).
To the extentthat plaintiff is assertinga right not to be arrestedor prosecutedwithout

probablecause,Count4 advances
the sameclaim as CountsI and2, anddefendants
areentitled

to summaryjudgmentfor the reasonssetforth above. Further,the Fifth Amendmentrequirement

of grandjury indictmentdoesnot extendto the states

. Albright,l14 S. Ct. at 812. To the

extentthat Count4 is basedon the lack of a grandjury procedurein Illinois, it doesnot setforth

a violationof anyprovisionof theUnitedStatesConstitution.

In Count3, plaintiff allegesthathis FourteenthAmendmentdueprocessrightswere

violatedby "fabrication[of evidence]

andinfluence.'o
The only allegationasto MonaNelsonis

thatshesatat the prosecutor's

tableandcriedduringthe testimonyof the victim's mother. Ken

CloreandMike Jonesallegedlyattempted
to convincevariouswitnesses
to give falsetestimony

at trial, andactuallyprocuredthe falsetestimonyof a jailhousesnitch.

Defendants
argueFonseca
cannotpursuea dueprocessclaimherebecause
he was

acquiuedof the charges. Plaintiff makesno responseto this argument,exceptto againstate

thatvariousdefendants
participated
in fabricatingevidence.Doc. 136,p. 7. This is completely

to staveoff summaryjudgment.
inadequate

This Courtagreesthatplaintiffcannotmaintaina dueprocessclaimbasedon the useof

falsetestimonywherehe wasacquittedof the criminalcharges.Substantive

dueprocessprotects

from violationsof fundamental

rightsonly. Wherethe accusedhasbeenacquitted,he hasnot

sufferedthe violationof a fundamental

right. Avila v, Pappas,sgl F.3d 552,554 (7,hCir.
7

Case3:08-cv-00435-CJP
Document
216 Filed03/16/10 Page8 of 9

2010),citingAlbrightv. Oliver,114S. Ct. 807,812(1994). Further,thereis no proceduraldue

process "[t]he rightto defend

claimbecause oneselfinthe stateprosecution,
andto advancea

tort claimin statecourt,is all theprocessduefor an unsupported

or maliciouslypursuedcriminal

charge."Avila,59l F.3dat 554.

areentitledto judgmenton plaintiff s claimin Count5 thathis right to

Lastly,defendants

travelwasviolatedbecause
JudgeMonis seta high bond. In his response,
plaintiff admitsthat

to be setforthin Count5 is "essentiallycoveredby Claims1- 4." Doc. 136,

the claimattempted

areentitledto judgmenton Count5 for the reasonsdiscussed

p. 8. Defendants aboveregarding

Counts1 through4. Further,theamountof thebondwassetby thejudge,andnot by any of the

defendants,

This Courthasconcluded
thatall of the movingdefendants
areentitledto summary

judgmenton plaintiff s federalclaims,Counts1 through5. The Courtwill not rule on

defendants'motion for summaryjudgmentasto plaintiff s statecourtclaims,setforth in Counts

6 through1l. The only remainingclaimsasto the movingdefendants

andasto defendant

Nelsonarestatelaw claims.ThisCourtdeclinesto exercisesupplemental

jurisdictionover

Fonseca's
remainingstatelaw claims.28 U.S.C.$1367(c)(3).See,UnitedMine Workersv.

Gibbs,86s.ct. 1130,1139(1966);Avila v. Pappas,sgtF.3d552,5s3 (7thcir. 2010).

Conclusion

For the foregoingreasons,

Defendants'Motion for SummaryJudgment(Doc. 117)is

GRANTED asto all defendants

on Counts1,2,3,4 and5. The Clerkof Courtis directedto

enterjudgmenton thoseCountsin favorof defendants

Keith Brown,Ken Clore,RandyButler,

Mike Jones,ToddFort,SteveSloan,MonaNelson,SalineCounfy,SheriffsOfficeof Saline

 Case3:08-cv-00435-CJP
Document
216 Filed03/16/10Page9 of 9

County,andthe State'sAttorney'sOffrceof SalineCounty.

The Courtmakesno rulingon Defendants'Motion for SummaryJudgment(Doc.ll7) as

to Counts6,7,8,9, 10,or 11.Rather,

theCourtdeclines
to exercisesupplementaljurisdiction

overplaintiffsstatelawclaims.
Accordingly,Counts
6,'7,8,9,l0and ll areordereddismissed

withoutprejudicefor lackofjurisdiction.Thus,the Courtalsodeclinesto rule on defendant

Nelson'sMotion for SummaryJudgment,

Doc. 114,which involvesonly statelaw claims.

The Clerkof Courtis directedto enterfinaljudgmentin accordance

herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: March 16,2010.

s/ Clifford J. Proud
CLIFFORD J. PROUD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
 Case3:08-cv-00435-CJP
Document
217 Filed03/16/10Page1 of 2

IN THE UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
FORTHE SOUTHERNDISTRICTOF ILLINOIS

ARNULFO FONSECA,

Plaintiff.

_YS_ NO.08-435-CJP

CHARLES DAVID I\-ELSON,KEITH BROWN,

KEN CLORE, MARK LeVAUGHN, RANDY
BUTLER, MIKE JONES, BRAD NEAL, DAVID
BLAZIER, TODD FORT, STEVE SLOAN, MONA
NELSON, SALINE COUNTY, SHERIFF'S OFFICE
SALINE COUNTY, STATE'S ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE SALINE COUNTY. and VILLAGE OF
CARRIER MILLS,

Defendants.

JUDGMENTIN A CIVIL CASE

Defendants
BRADNEAL,DAVID BLAZIER,andVILLAGE OFCARRIERMILLS,were

dismissed
on July26,2009by anOrderenteredby UnitedStatesDistrictJudgeMichaelJ. Reagan

(Doc.148).

Defendant
MARK LeVAUGHwasdismissed
on September
10,2009by an Orderentered

by UnitedStatesDistrictJudgeMichaelJ. Reagan(Doc. 182).

DefendantsKEITH BRowN, KEN cLoRE, RANDY BUTLER, MIKE JONES,TODD

FORT,STEVESLOAN,MONA NELSON,SALINECOIINTY, SHERIFF,SOFFICEof SALINE

COLTNTY,
STATE'SATTORNEYSOFFICEof SALINECOLINTYweredismissed
on March 16,

2010by an Orderenteredby UnitedStatesMagistrateJudgeClifford J. Proud(Doc.216).

Page1 o'f 2
a

Case3:08-cv-00435-CJP
Document
217 Filed03/16/10Page2 of 2

IT IS IIEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED thatjudgmentis enteredin favor

of defendantsCHARLES DAVID NELSON, KEITH BROWI\, KEN CLORE, MARK

LeVAUGHN, RANDY BUTLER, MIKE JONES, BRAD NEAL, DAVID BLAZIER, TODD

FORT, STEVE SLOAN, MONA NELSON, SALINE COUNTY, SHERIFF'S OFFICE of

SALINE COUNTY, STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE of SALINE COTINTY andVILLAGE

OF CARRIER MILLS andagainstplaintiffARNULFO FONSECA.

Plaintiffshalltakenothinsfrom this action.

DATED this 16ftdayof March.2010

NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL,CLERK

BY: S/.AngellVehlewald
DeputyClerk

Approvedby S/ Clifford .I. Proud

United StatesMagistrateJudge
Clifford J. Proud

Page?of 2