United States of America v. Case

Filing 72

ORDER: It is ORDERED that the # 68 Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lowe is ACCEPTED in its entirety; Defendant Case's # 6 Answer and his # 47 responses to the # 45 Amended Complaint are STRICKEN. It is further ORDERED that Def endant Case is in DEFAULT and Plaintiff is to file and serve a motion seeking entry of a default judgment within 20 days of the date of the Order. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr on 9/30/2010. {Copy served upon pro se Defendant by regular mail} (mae)

United States of America v. Case

Doc. 72

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _______________________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT V. CASE, JUBILEE ENTERPRISES, FREEDOM RIDGE COMPANY, SOVEREIGN WOODS COMPANY, and FOREST RESERVE COMPANY, Defendants. _______________________________________________ APPEARANCES UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 555 Fourth Street, N.W. Room 7814 Washington, D.C. 20001 Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ­ TAX DIVISION Ben Franklin Station P.O. Box 55 Washington, D.C. 20044 Attorneys for Plaintiff ROBERT V. CASE Groton, New York 13073 Defendant pro se SCULLIN, Senior Judge ORDER In a Report-Recommendation dated August 12, 2010, Magistrate Judge Lowe reviewed in detail Defendant Case's failure to comply with legitimate discovery demands, despite the Court's OF COUNSEL BARTHOLOMEW CIRENZA, ESQ. 5:06-CV-570 (FJS/GHL)

LISA L. BELLAMY, ESQ.

Dockets.Justia.com

and Plaintiff's attempts to secure his compliance. See Dkt. No. 68 at 2-4. Magistrate Judge Lowe then reviewed the various factors that "[i]nform[] a court's decision on whether to award the ultimate sanction of striking defendant's answer[,]" see id. at 5-6, and concluded that "these factors weigh[ed] heavily in favor of striking defendant Case's answer and declaring him in default." See id. at 6. Therefore, Magistrate Judge Lowe recommended that this Court strike Defendant Case's answer to the complaint and his responses to allegations in Plaintiff's first amended complaint that previously were alleged in the original complaint, declare Defendant Case in default, and give Plaintiff permission to file a motion seeking entry of a default judgment. See id. at 7. Defendant Case filed objections to these recommendations, see Dkt. No. 70; and Plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in response to those objections, see Dkt. No. 71. Defendant Case's objections are, for the most part, a reiteration of the objections he filed in response to Magistrate Judge Lowe's April 26, 2010 Order, which this Court has previously reviewed and rejected in affirming Magistrate Judge Lowe's April 26, 2010 Order in its entirety. See Dkt. No. 69. The Court has, once again, reviewed Defendant Case's objections and finds them to be without merit. A review of the record makes clear that Defendant Case has wilfully and intentionally refused to engage in discovery and has continually ignored this Court's orders. As such, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Lowe that the ultimate sanction of striking Defendant Case's answer and declaring him in default is appropriate and warranted in these circumstances. Accordingly, the Court hereby -2-

ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Lowe's August 12, 2010 Report-Recommendation is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further ORDERS that Defendant Case's answer to the complaint and his responses to allegations in Plaintiff's first amended complaint that previously were alleged in the original complaint, see Dkt. Nos. 6, 47, are STRICKEN; and the Court further ORDERS that Defendant Case is in DEFAULT; and the Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff shall file and serve a motion seeking entry of a default judgment within twenty days of the date of the Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2010 Syracuse, New York

-3-