United States of America v. Torrance

Filing 28

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 02/04/20 RECOMMENDING that the 24 Motion to Dismiss be denied. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner

12
v.

13
14

No. 2:18-cv-1631-JAM-EFB PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

BRIAN E. TORRANCE,
Respondent.

15
16

On August 8, 2019, the undersigned recommended the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”)

17
18

tax summons served upon respondent Brian Torrance be enforced.1 ECF No. 20. In response,

19

Torrance filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 23) and a motion to

20

dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction (ECF No. 24). Thereafter, the assigned district judge

21

adopted the October 8 findings and recommendations, ordered the IRS summons enforced, and

22

directed Torrance to appear before Revenue Agent David Palmer for examination. ECF No. 25.

23

Torrance’s motion to dismiss remains pending, however.
Torrance’s motion to dismiss merely rehashes his prior argument that this court lacks

24
25

jurisdiction because the summons was not properly issued and served by Agent Palmer. That

26

/////

27
28

1

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21).
1

1

argument has already been rejected (ECF Nos. 20 & 25), and Torrance has failed to demonstrate

2

any basis for reconsidering the court’s prior order.2

3
4

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF
No. 24) be denied.

5

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

6

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

7

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

8

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

9

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

10

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

11

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

12

DATED: February 4, 2020.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

After the court ordered enforcement of the IRS summons, Torrance filed a motion to
alter or amend the enforcement order. ECF No. 26. That motion, which also argued that the
court lacks jurisdiction, was denied. ECF No. 27.
2