No. 07-5246.United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed On: December 31, 2007.
BEFORE: Rogers, Garland, and Griffith, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the trust account report and the consent to collection of fees, it is.
ORDERED that pursuant to appellant’s consent to collection of fees, appellant’s custodian is directed to pay on appellant’s behalf the initial partial filing fee of $145.23, to be withheld from appellant’s trust fund account. See28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The payment must be by check or money order made payable to Clerk, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Appellant’s custodian also is directed to collect and pay from appellant’s trust account monthly installments of 20 percent of the previous month’s income credited to appellant’s account, until the full $455 docketing fee has been paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Such payments must be made each month the amount in the account exceeds $10. The payment must be by check or money order made payable to Clerk, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and must be designated as made in payment of the filing fee for Case No. 07-5246, an appeal from Civil Action No. 06cv01698. A copy of this order must accompany each remittance. In the event appellant is transferred to another institution, the balance due must be collected and paid to the Clerk by the custodian at appellant’s next institution. Appellant’s custodian must notify the Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Clerk, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in the event appellant is released from custody.
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to appellant, by whatever means necessary to ensure receipt, and to the Clerk, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Clerk is further directed to send to appellant’s custodian a copy of this order and appellant’s consent to collection of fees.
Page 2
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, and the opposition thereto, it is.
ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties’ positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog,Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court properly granted summary judgment for the Bureau of Prisons on appellant’s Privacy Act claims,see 25 C.F.R. § 16.97(a), (j); White v.United States Probation Office, 148 F.3d 1124, 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Bureau of Prisons, 444 F.3d 620, 624 (D.C. Cir. 2006), and properly held that the United States Probation Office is not subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act. See 5 U.S.C. § 551(1)(B).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc.See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
Page 1