Breaux v. USA

Filing 10

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 6 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by USA. IT IS RECOMMENDED that defendants Motion to Dismiss (rec. doc. 6) be GRANTED and this matter be DISMISSED. Objections to R&R due by 2/1/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 1/13/10. (crt,Smith, C)

Download PDF
U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT W E S T E R N DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA L A F A Y E T T E -O P E L O U S A S DIVISION K E I T H L. BREAUX V ER SU S U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA C I V I L ACTION NO. 07-0910 J U D G E MELANCON M A G I S T R A T E JUDGE HANNA R E P O R T AND RECOMMENDATION B e fo re the court is defendant's Motion to Dismiss (rec. doc. 6). The motion is unopposed. I n its motion, defendant asks the court to dismiss plaintiff's Petition to Quash S u m m o n s . Plaintiff's petition to quash summons was filed on May 30, 2007, and served o n the United States Attorney's Office on November 30, 2007. The summons sought to be quashed was issued by the Internal Revenue Service on T e c h e Federal Savings Bank on May 8, 2007, for various information and records p e rta in in g to plaintiff Keith L. Breaux. On May 15, 2007, Teche responded to the s u m m o n s , stating it had none of the records requested, prior to the petition to quash being fi le d . In its motion to dismiss, defendant asks that the petition to quash be dismissed for fa ilu re to properly effect service upon United States through the Attorney General of the U n ite d States, and because the matter is moot. Defendants explain plaintiff only served th e United States Attorney, and the summons was issued and responded to prior to the p e titio n to quash having been filed. As noted above, defendant's motion to dismiss is 1 unopposed. A fte r review of the litigation and defendant's motion, the undersigned finds d e fe n d a n t's motion to dismiss is supported in law and in fact. Therefore, I T IS RECOMMENDED that defendant's Motion to Dismiss (rec. doc. 6) be G R A N T E D and this matter be DISMISSED. U n d e r the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b), parties a g g rie v e d by this recommendation have fourteen (14) days from service of this report and re c o m m e n d a tio n to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court. A party may re sp o n d to another party's objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a c o p y of any objections or responses to the district judge at the time of filing. F a ilu r e to file written objections to the proposed factual findings and/or the p r o p o se d legal conclusions reflected in this Report and Recommendation within fo u r te e n (14) days following the date of its service, or within the time frame a u t h o r ize d by Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking either th e factual findings or the legal conclusions accepted by the District Court, except 2 u p o n grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile A s s o c ia tio n , 79 F.3d 1415 (5 th Cir. 1996). T h u s done and signed this 13 th day of January, 2010 at Lafayette, Louisiana. 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?