Ray v. Internal Revenue Service et al

Filing 71

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 56 Report and Recommendations, 31 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report 56 is ACCEPTED; Defendant's Objections are OVERRULED 68 ; and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 31 is granted in part and denied in part. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 09/23/2009. (dsto, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Michael R. Ray, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Internal Revenue Service, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) C.A. No. 4:08-1067 O RD ER Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this action alleging violations concerning his 2003 tax returns. On February 20, 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's claims. On August 4, 2009, United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Rogers, to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), filed a Report and Recommendation ("the Report"). In the Report, Magistrate Judge Rogers recommends that the defendants' motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. On September 4, 2009, Plaintiff filed a letter indicating that he "concurs with the findings of the magistrate judge." On September 10, 2009, the defendants filed objections to the Report. This Court is charged with reviewing the Magistrate's reports and the Plaintiff's objections thereto. In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard: The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party may file written objections. . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations. Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F.Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations omitted). In light of this standard, the Court has carefully reviewed the reports and the objections thereto and has concluded that the report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report is ACCEPTED (Doc. # 56); defendants' objections are OVERRULED (Doc. # 68); and defendant's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part (Doc. # 31). IT IS SO ORDERED. S/ Terry L. Wooten TERRY L. WOOTEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE September 23, 2009 Florence, South Carolina

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?