¶1 OPINION
¶2 William Lee Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Richardson v. Richardson, No. CA-01-616-2 (S.D.W.Va. Dec. 21, 2001).
¶3 We have further reviewed Richardson’s response to our order to show cause as to why he should not be sanctioned for filing frivolous appeals and enjoined from filing further actions in this court until the sanctions are paid and a district court judge finds the action is not frivolous. We find his response legally and factually baseless. Therefore, having filed numerous frivolous appeals in this court from district court orders dismissing his civil complaints as frivolous, for failure to state a claim, and as non-justiciable, Richardson is sanctioned $500 for filing frivolous appeals and enjoined from filing further actions in this court until the sanctions are paid and a district court judge finds that the action is not frivolous.
¶4 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before *179 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
¶5 AFFIRMED.