United States of America v. Hampton

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Respondent Syd Hampton ordered to COMPLY with each requirement of the summons. Clerk to forward a copy of this Order via regular and certified mail to respondent. Signed on 7/11/12 by Chief District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. (Enss, Rhonda)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner,
v.
SYD HAMPTON,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.11-9016-MC-C-FJG

ORDER

Pursuant to the Local Court Rules of the United States District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, 28 U.S.C. § 636 and governing statutes and law, the Petition to Enforce
Internal Revenue Service Summons directed to Syd Hampton was referred to the United
States Magistrate Judge Matt. J. Whitworth for processing and handling. The Magistrate
Judge has completed the processing and handling of the Petition and has filed his written
Report and Recommendation. See Doc. No. 9. He recommends that Respondent Hampton
be ordered to comply with the summons issued by Revenue Officer Deborah J. May on
September 1, 2011, and that such compliance should occur on a date and time agreed
upon by Officer May and Respondent Syd Hampton, but not later than thirty days after the
date of any such order directing compliance with the summons upon Respondent Hampton.
In accordance with the requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 636, a copy of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation was served on all parties to this action. Respondent
Hampton filed written objections on May 8, 2012, indicating that: (1) he objects to the
amount the IRS states that he owes in taxes, and the means used to calculate that amount
(see Doc. No. 10, pp. 2-6); (2) the statute of limitations has run on the IRS’s claim against

him (Doc. No. 10, pp. 6-10); (3) the Magistrate Judge issued an “order” without making a
“report and recommendation” first (Doc. No. 10, pp. 10-11); and (4) the Magistrate Judge
did not allow respondent’s non-attorney representative aid him at the hearing on May 24,
2012 (Doc. No. 10, pp. 11-12).
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is based upon the written record. This Court has
reviewed that record, carefully considered the Magistrate Judge’s Report, and hereby
adopts, after independently determining that they are correct and proper, the findings,
conclusions and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. In particular, the Court notes
that respondent’s objection that the Magistrate Judge issued an “order” rather than a
“report and recommendation” is meritless; otherwise, this current Order would be
unnecessary. Furthermore, non-attorney representatives are not permitted to represent
parties in federal court. The Court concurs with Magistrate Judge Whitworth that the
government has made the “minimal showing” necessary to establish a prima facie case for
enforcement of a summons, and defendant has not met the “heavy burden” necessary to
demonstrate that the summons was issued for an improper purpose or was otherwise
deficient. See U.S. v. Norwood, 420 F.3d 888, 892-93 (8th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
(1) respondent Syd Hampton COMPLY with each requirement of the summons
issued by Revenue Officer May on a date and at a time agreed upon by Revenue Officer
May and respondent Hampton, but not later than thirty days after service of this Order on
respondent Hampton; and
(2) the Clerk of the Court forward a copy of this Order via regular and certified mail

2

to Respondent Syd Hampton, 252 Denninghoff Road, Route 17, Columbia, Missouri 652039803.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge

Dated: July 11, 2012
Kansas City, Missouri

3