United States of America v. Worley et al

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - 1.The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab (Doc. 23) is ADOPTED in its entirety.2.The United States of Americas Motion to Dismiss the Defendants Counterclaims (Doc. 13) is GRANTED. Defendants Counterclaims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 3.Defendants Motion for Sufficient Time to Develop Crossclaim or Amend Crossclaim (Doc. 11) is DENIED.4.This matter is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Schwab for all further pre-trial management. (eo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
GLEN WORLEY, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

1:13-cv-761

Hon. John E. Jones III

ORDER
AND NOW, this 18th day of October, 2013, upon consideration of the report and
recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab (Doc. 23),
recommending that the United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s
Counterclaims (Doc. 12) be granted and Defendants’ counterclaims be dismissed as
frivolous and without leave to amend, and that Defendants’ self-styled “Motion for
Sufficient Time to Develop Crossclaim or Amend Crossclaim” (Doc. 11) be denied,
and, after an independent review of the record, and noting that Defendants filed
objections1 (Doc. 25) to the report on October 8, 2013 to which the United States filed a
response (Doc. 26) on October 10, 2013, and the Court finding Judge Schwab’s analysis
1

Where objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are filed, the court
must perform a de novo review of the contested portions of the report. Supinski v. United Parcel
Serv., Civ. A. No. 06-0793, 2009 WL 113796, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2009) (citing Sample v.
Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). “In this regard,
Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires ‘written objections which . . . specifically identify the portions
of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for
those objections.’” Id. (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 07-417, 2008 WL 4186951, at *6
(M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008)).

to be thorough, well-reasoned, and fully supported by the record, and the Court further
finding the Defendants’ objections to be without merit2 and squarely addressed by Judge
Schwab’s report, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab
(Doc. 23) is ADOPTED in its entirety.

2.

The United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss the Defendants’
Counterclaims (Doc. 13) is GRANTED. Defendants’ Counterclaims are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

3.

Defendants’ “Motion for Sufficient Time to Develop Crossclaim or Amend
Crossclaim” (Doc. 11) is DENIED.

4.

This matter is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Schwab for all further
pre-trial management.

s/ John E. Jones III
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge

2

Defendants’ objections to the R&R are entirely non-meritorious and merely reiterate
typical tax-protestor arguments raised by the Defendants throughout their filings in this case.
2