Parker v. Department of Corrections et al

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS denying 14 Motion to Dismiss Case filed by Siefert, Pitts, 13 Report and Recommendations, Signed by District Judge Scott O. Wright on 10/8/2008. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (McIlvain, Kelly)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION DANNY PARKER, Register No. 25572, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 08-4139-CV-C-SOW ORDER On September 4, 2008, United States Magistrate Judge William A. Knox recommended dismissing plaintiff's claims. The parties were advised they could file written exceptions to the recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C). No exceptions have been filed. A review of the record convinces the court that the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is correct and should be adopted. Inmates who file an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit are required to pay the full $455.00 appellate filing fee, regardless of the outcome of the appeal. Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481, 484 (8th Cir. 1997). The filing of a notice of appeal is considered a consent by the inmate to allow prison officials to deduct an initial partial appellate filing fee and later installments from the prisoner's account. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of September 4, 2008, is adopted. [13] It is further ORDERED that plaintiff's claims are dismissed, pursuant to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), for failure to comply with court orders. It is further ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for judgment on the pleadings, is denied as moot. [14] /s/ Scott O. Wright SCOTT O. WRIGHT Senior United States District Judge Dated: __10/8/2008______ Kansas City, Missouri 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?