Boggs v. United States et al

Filing 19

ORDER adopting 14 Report and Recommendation and dismissing this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 5/18/2016. (cbru, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Richard Boggs,

) Civil Action No. 3:16-1178-MGL
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
ORDER
)
United States; Department of Treasury; I.R.S.
)
Commissioner John Koskinen; and Internal
)
Revenue Service,
)
)
Defendants.
_______________________________________
Plaintiff Richard Boggs, (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brings this civil action against the
United States, the Department of Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service, (I.R.S.) and I.R.S.
Commissioner John Koskinen (collectively, “Defendants”). (ECF No. 1).1 In accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for all pre-trial proceedings.
On April 29, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, (“the
Report”), (ECF No. 14), recommending that the Amended Complaint be summarily dismissed
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process, as failing to allege any non-frivolous,
cognizable federal claims. On May 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Report, (ECF No.
18), and the matter is now ripe for decision.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.

1

Although the Complaint, (ECF No. 1), lists seventeen other individuals as “Plaintiffs,” the Complaint is
signed only by Plaintiff Boggs, who lacks standing to bring suit on behalf of others similarly situated. See Myers v.
Loudon Co. Pub. Sch.., 418 F.3d 39, 401 (4th Cir. 2005) (finding one pro se litigant may not represent another).

See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is
made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by
the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). In the absence of a timely filed Objection, a district court need not conduct a de
novo review, but instead must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record
in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,
315 (4th Cir. 2005).
In light of the standards set forth above, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the entire record,
including, in particular, the Report and Plaintiff’s Objection. The Court concludes that none of
Plaintiff’s objections supply fact or argument to meaningfully counter the reasoned conclusion of
the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to allege any non-frivolous, actionable
federal claims.
For the forgoing reasons, the Court concurs with the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge and
adopts the Report and incorporates it herein by reference, (ECF No. 14), overruling Plaintiff’s
Objection. (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is thereby DISMISSED without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
May 18, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

-2-

*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within sixty days from the
date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

-3-