Personett v. Internal Revenue Service

Filing 7

ORDER accepting 6 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Respondents Internal Revenue Service and May A. Brown are dismissed, and the United States is substituted in their place as the sole respondent. Granting 3 The United States' Motion to Dismiss. Denying 1 Petition to Quash I.R.S. Summons. This matter, and all claims asserted therein, is dismissed with prejudice, by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 9/24/09.(ebs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Case No. 09-cv-01258-PAB-KMT JOSEPH PERSONETT, Petitioner, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE and MAY A. BROWN, Revenue Agent, or designee, Respondents. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION _____________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya filed on September 3, 2009 [Docket No. 6]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within ten days after its service on the parties. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on September 3, 2009. No party has objected to the Recommendation. In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge's recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings"). In this matter, I have reviewed the Recommendation to

satisfy myself that there is "no clear error on the face of the record."1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, I have concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 6] is ACCEPTED. 2. Respondents Internal Revenue Service and May A. Brown are dismissed, and the United States is substituted in their place as the sole respondent. 3. The United States' Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 3] is GRANTED. 4. The petition to quash I.R.S. summons [Docket No. 1[ is DENIED. 5. This matter, and all claims asserted therein, is dismissed with prejudice.

DATED September 24, 2009. BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer PHILIP A. BRIMMER United States District Judge

This standard of review is something less than a "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 2

1