Douglas Marcello v. IRS


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:08-cv-02796-RDB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998537713] [10-1866]

Download PDF
Douglas Marcello v. IRS Doc. 0 Case: 10-1866 Document: 25 Date Filed: 03/04/2011 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1866 DOUGLAS PAUL MARCELLO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant Appellee, v. JOHN MARCELLO, Third Party Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:08-cv-02796-RDB) Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 4, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas Paul Marcello, Appellant Pro Se. Geoffrey John Klimas, Kathleen E. Lyon, Kenneth W. Rosenberg, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Case: 10-1866 Document: 25 Date Filed: 03/04/2011 Page: 2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Case: 10-1866 Document: 25 Date Filed: 03/04/2011 Page: 3 PER CURIAM: Douglas Marcello appeals the district court's orders dismissing his complaint against the Internal Revenue Service for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, upholding the Commissioner's assessment of a trust fund recovery penalty We have against him, and reducing the assessment to judgment. reviewed the record and find no reversible error. we affirm for the reasons stated by the Accordingly, court. district Marcello v. Internal Rev. Serv., No. 1:08-cv-02796-RDB (D. Md. Apr. 21, May 3 & Nov. 12, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

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?