From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

CUPP v. REED

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
Feb 5, 2009
Civil Action No. 2:08cv62 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 5, 2009)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 2:08cv62.

February 5, 2009


ORDER


It will be recalled that on December 4, 2008, Magistrate Judge Kaull filed his Report and Recommendation, wherein the Plaintiff was directed, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), to file with the Clerk of Court any written objections within ten (10) days after being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff filed his objections on December 19, 2008.

Upon examination of the report from the Magistrate Judge, it appears to the Court that the issues raised by the Plaintiff in his Complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, wherein Plaintiff challenges the way in which his Inmate Financial Responsibility Program payments are being calculated and asserts that he is being coerced to participate, were thoroughly considered by Magistrate Judge Kaull in his Report and Recommendation. Upon review of the Plaintiff's objections, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has not raised any issues that were not already throughly considered and addressed by the Magistrate Judge in his Report and Recommendation. Moreover, the Court, upon an independent de novo consideration of all matters now before it, is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation accurately reflects the law applicable to the facts and circumstances before the Court in this action. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Kaull's Report and Recommendation be, and the same hereby is, accepted in whole and that this civil action be disposed of in accordance with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Complaint shall be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e), for failure to state a claim. It is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Stop the Federal Bureau of Prisons from Collecting F.R.P. payments (docket #9) shall be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. It is further

ORDERED that the above-styled civil action shall be STRICKEN from the docket of this Court. It is further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment for the Defendants. It is further

ORDERED that, if Plaintiff should desire to appeal the decision of this Court, written notice of appeal must be received by the Clerk of this Court within thirty (30) days from the date of the entry of the Judgment Order, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The $5.00 filing fee for the notice of appeal and the $450.00 docketing fee should also be submitted with the notice of appeal. In the alternative, at the time the notice of appeal is submitted, Plaintiff may, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to transmit a copy of this Order to all parties appearing herein.


Summaries of

CUPP v. REED

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
Feb 5, 2009
Civil Action No. 2:08cv62 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 5, 2009)
Case details for

CUPP v. REED

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN O. CUPP, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD REED, DANE HEADY, JOYCE FRANCIS…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia

Date published: Feb 5, 2009

Citations

Civil Action No. 2:08cv62 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 5, 2009)

Citing Cases

Villareal v. Wolfe

Additionally, even though an inmate's failure to comply with the IFRP can have negative consequences,…

United States v. Fuentes-Quinones

“The IFRP program serves valid penological interests and is fully consistent with the Bureau of Prisons'…