United States of America v. Bacon
Filing
15
ORDER ADOPTING 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE: I.R.S. SUMMONS ENFORCEMENT; ORDERED ENFORCEMENT of I.R.S. Summons Issued to Respondent; ORDERED that Respondent, Nathan D. Bacon, appear before investigating Revenue Officer Michael Nicholas, or hi s designated representative, as the I.R.S. offices at 1533 Lakewood Avenue, Modesto, California 95355, 21 days after the issuance of this order, at 10:00 a.m., or such later date and time to be set by Revenue Officer Nicholas, then and there to be sw orn, to give testimony, and to produce for examination and copying the books, checks, records, papers and other data demanded by the summons; The examination shall continue from day to day until completed, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 01/14/2012. (This order and any future orders will be served by mail to Mr. Nicholas D. Bacon as provided in this order)(Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
10
11
12
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01250-AWI-SMS
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
AND ENFORCING I.R.S. SUMMONS
v.
NATHAN D. BACON,
13
Respondent.
(Doc. 12)
/
14
15
16
The United States petitioned for enforcement of an I.R.S. summons issued by Revenue
17
Officer Martha Rodriguez to Respondent Nathan D. Bacon. The matter was referred to United
18
States Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 et seq. and Local Rule
19
72-302.
20
On August 2, 2011, the Magistrate Judge ordered Respondent to show cause why the
21
22
I.R.S. summons issued to him on January 7, 2011, should not be enforced. The Petitioner served
23
Respondent with the Petition, Points and Authorities, and Order to Show Cause in conformity
24
with F.R.Civ.P. 4. Respondent neither filed an opposition to enforcement under paragraph 3,
25
page 2 of the order to show cause nor appeared at the November 16, 2011 hearing before the
26
Magistrate Judge.
27
-1-
1
2
On November 23, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations,
finding that the summons enforcement requirements had been satisfied and recommending
3
enforcement of the summons. Petitioner served Respondent by mail with the Findings and
4
5
6
7
8
9
Recommendations on December 19, 2011.
The Findings and Recommendations provided ten days for the filing of objections.
Neither party filed objections.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted
a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the
10
11
12
Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis, and
determines that the summons enforcement is properly granted.
13
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS:
14
1.
15
The Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations Re: I.R.S. Summons
Enforcement, filed November 23, 2011, are hereby adopted in full.
16
17
18
2.
The I.R.S. summons issued to Respondent is hereby enforced.
3.
Respondent, Nathan D. Bacon, is ordered to appear before investigating Revenue
19
Officer Michael Nicholas, or his designated representative, as the I.R.S. offices at
20
1533 Lakewood Avenue, Modesto, California 95355, 21 days after the issuance of
21
this order, at 10:00 a.m., or such later date and time to be set by Revenue Officer
22
23
Nicholas, then and there to be sworn, to give testimony, and to produce for
24
examination and copying the books, checks, records, papers and other data
25
demanded by the summons. The examination shall continue from day to day until
26
completed.
27
-2-
1
2
4.
The Clerk of Court is directed to serve this and future orders by mail to Mr.
3
Nicholas D. Bacon, 30019 Westlake Drive, Menifee, CA 92584.
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
Dated:
0m8i78
8
January 14, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-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?