McNeil v. Internal Revenue Service

Filing 29

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 05/04/10 DENYING 28 Motion for Reconsideration. (Williams, D)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff, proceeding in pro se, sued the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") for a tax refund. The IRS moved to dismiss on ----oo0oo---v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant. JAMES ROY MCNEIL, Plaintiff, ORDER No. 2:08-cv-02432-MCE-KJN P UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

grounds that the Plaintiff did not make any claim for refund before instituting the present lawsuit. Because of that failure,

the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations that the matter be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on grounds that the government was entitled to sovereign immunity from suit. By Order filed April 5, 2010, this Court adopted

those findings and recommendations and dismissed the case. 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff neither opposed Defendant's Motion to Dismiss nor filed any objection to the findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. After judgment was entered in accordance

with this Court's Order dismissing the case, however, Plaintiff filed a one page letter with the Court asking that the case be "reopened" because the IRS still "owes me $633.00." The Court

will construe that letter as a Motion for Reconsideration. Under Eastern District Local Rule 230(j), an application for reconsideration must show what new or different facts are claimed to exist at the time of reconsideration which did not exist beforehand, or what other grounds exist for the Motion. Plaintiff's instant request fails to meet that standard. Not

only did he fail to oppose the Motion to Dismiss at the time it was made or object to the findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge thereon, he also provides absolutely no new or different facts or circumstances to indicate that reconsideration is appropriate. Plaintiff's Motion for

Reconsideration (Docket No. 28) is accordingly DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 4, 2010

_____________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2