Tatar v. United States of America

Filing 16

OPINION and ORDER Granting Defendant's 5 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOHN JOSEPH TATAR,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 16-13117
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
On August 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit challenging the United States
government’s ability to levy income taxes against him. The matter presently is before the
Court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 5.) The Court has referred this
matter for all pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge David R. Grand.
On July 7, 2017, Magistrate Judge Grand issued a Report and Recommendation
(R&R) in which he recommends that this Court grant Defendant’s motion. (ECF No.
13.) Judge Grand first concludes that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to issue
the injunctive or declaratory relief Plaintiff seeks pursuant to the Anti-Injunction Act and
Declaratory Judgment Act. (Id. at 6-10.) Next, Magistrate Judge Grand concludes that
the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiff’s claims for a refund for
any tax year besides 1996 due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the jurisdictional
requirements of a refund suit. (Id. at 10-12.) Finally, with respect to the 1996 tax year,
Magistrate Judge Grand concludes that Plaintiff’s claim lacks merit. (Id. at 13-15.)

1

At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Grand informs the parties that
they must file any objections to the R&R within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections
on July 21, 2017. (ECF No. 14.) Defendant filed a response to the objections on August
3, 2017. (ECF No. 15.)
When objections are filed to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on a
dispositive matter, the Court “make[s] a de novo determination of those portions of the
report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court, however, “is not required to articulate all of the
reasons it rejects a party’s objections.” Thomas v. Halter, 131 F. Supp. 2d 942, 944 (E.D.
Mich. 2001) (citations omitted). A party’s failure to file objections to certain conclusions
of the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal on those issues. See
Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir.1987).
Likewise, the failure to object to certain conclusions in the magistrate judge’s report
releases the Court from its duty to review those issues independently. See Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
The Court has made a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to
which Plaintiff objects and reaches the same conclusions as Magistrate Judge Grand for
the reasons stated in his R&R. As Plaintiff mainly reasserts in his objections the
arguments he previously made in response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, the Court
finds it unnecessary to repeat Magistrate Judge Grand’s explanations for why those
arguments lack merit. With respect to Plaintiff’s assertion (raised for the first time in his
objections) that Defendant mistakenly assessed him tax on mortgage proceeds that were

2

not income, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider grounds for a refund not stated with
specificity in the claim for refund. McDonnell v. United States, 180 F.3d 721, 722 (6th
Cir. 1999) (citing Salyersville Nat’l Bank v. United States, 613 F.2d 650, 651 (6th Cir.
1980)).
For these reasons, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Grand’s recommendations in
his July 7, 2017 R&R.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) is
GRANTED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 18, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
and/or pro se parties on this date, August 18, 2017, by electronic and/or U.S. First Class
mail.
s/ R. Loury
Case Manager

3