Summary
In Moore v. Hoeven, No. 1:08-cv-028, 2008 WL 1902451, at *10 (D. North Dakota, Apr. 28, 2008) (Not Reported in F.Supp.2d), the court reviewed the decision of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), which held that the practice and policy of opening mail from attorneys for inspection for contraband, so long as the inspection was done in the presence of the inmate to assure the mail was not read, passed constitutional muster.
Summary of this case from Ford v. ColemanOpinion
Case No. 1:08-cv-028.
April 28, 2008
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On February 27, 2008, the plaintiff, Anthony James Moore, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis, a motion for appointment of counsel, a motion for change of venue, and a motion for recusal. See Docket Nos. 1 and 2. On March 7, 2008, the Court denied Moore's motion for appointment of counsel. See Docket No. 8. Before the Court was able to complete an initial screening and rule on Moore's application to proceed in forma pauperis, Moore filed a motion for summary judgment on March 25, 2008. See Docket No. 10. On April 1, 2008, the Court denied Moore's motion to change venue and motion for recusal. See Docket No. 12.
Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. conducted an initial review of Moore's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. On April 21, 2008, Magistrate Judge Miller submitted a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that Moore's application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied, that Moore's complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and that the dismissal of Moore's complaint be without prejudice except for claim seven (interference with legal mail), which should be dismissed with prejudice. See Docket No. 13. Moore was given ten (10) days to file an objection to the Report and Recommendation.
Moore filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation on April 25, 2008. See Docket No. 15. Moore objects to the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and contends that each of his claims should go forward. Moore does not provide the Court with a factual or legal basis for why the Court should not adopt the Report and Recommendation.
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, relevant case law, and the entire record, and finds the Report and Recommendation to be persuasive. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 13) in its entirety. Accordingly, Moore's Application to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and Moore's complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. The dismissal of Moore's complaint shall be without prejudice except for claim seven (interference with legal mail), which shall be dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.