From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

James v. Dormire

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Central Division
Mar 3, 2008
No. 07-4141-CV-C-NKL (W.D. Mo. Mar. 3, 2008)

Summary

allowing a claim to proceed based on allegations that sharing electric razors presented danger of spreading infection, then found the § 1915(g) exception inapplicable when officials showed that they cleaned the razors between uses with Barbicide

Summary of this case from Daker v. Dozier

Opinion

No. 07-4141-CV-C-NKL.

March 3, 2008


ORDER


On January 29, 2008, United States Magistrate Judge William A. Knox recommended revoking plaintiff's in forma pauperis status, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The parties were advised they could file written exceptions to the recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

The court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including the exceptions filed by plaintiff on February 19 and 25, 2008. The issues raised in plaintiff's exceptions were adequately addressed in the report and recommendation. Further, plaintiff's arguments regarding the validity of January 3, 2008 video conference are without merit. The court is persuaded that the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is correct and should be adopted.

Court proceedings, if any, are recorded by electronic recording equipment and the tapes are available for review by the court and counsel.

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 January 29, 2008, is adopted. [27] It is further

ORDERED that plaintiff's in forma pauperis status is revoked and his complaint is dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). [19] It is further

ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order is denied. [4] It is further

ORDERED that all other pending motions are denied as moot. [10, 11]


Summaries of

James v. Dormire

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Central Division
Mar 3, 2008
No. 07-4141-CV-C-NKL (W.D. Mo. Mar. 3, 2008)

allowing a claim to proceed based on allegations that sharing electric razors presented danger of spreading infection, then found the § 1915(g) exception inapplicable when officials showed that they cleaned the razors between uses with Barbicide

Summary of this case from Daker v. Dozier
Case details for

James v. Dormire

Case Details

Full title:DEREK Q. JAMES, Register No. 182777, Plaintiff, v. DAVE DORMIRE, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Central Division

Date published: Mar 3, 2008

Citations

No. 07-4141-CV-C-NKL (W.D. Mo. Mar. 3, 2008)

Citing Cases

Daker v. Dozier

Doc. 6 at 8. As support, Plaintiff cites: Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding…