J Chappell Dew et al v. United States of America et al

Filing 30

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: It is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's 27 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the respondents' 13 motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED; the 1 petition to quash is hereby DISMISSED as MOOT; and this case is DISMISSED in its entirety. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 2/18/2010. (prou, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION J. Chappell Dew, Teresa S. Dew, and Linley S. Dew, ) ) ) Petitioners, ) ) vs. ) ) United States of America, Branch Banking ) & Trust Company, Douglas Shulman, ) Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and ) Becky McClelland, Revenue Officer, ) ) Respondents. ) ____________________________________) Civil Action No.: 4:09-1573-TLW-TER ORDER The pro se petitioners filed this petition to quash a third-party summons on June 15, 2009. (Doc. #1). On July 6, 2009, the respondents United States of America, Douglas Shulman, and Becky McClelland1 filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, noting that the summonses were no longer necessary. (Doc. #13). The petitioners filed a response in opposition on August 11, 2009. (Doc. #17). The respondents filed a reply on August 25, 2009. (Doc. #24). The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(e), DSC. This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by the Magistrate Judge to whom this case had previously been assigned. (Doc. #27). On January 20, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the respondents' motion to dismiss be granted, that the petition to quash be Respondent Branch Banking & Trust, the party to whom the third-party summonses were issued, was not r e p r e s e n t e d by counsel in this matter. 1 dismissed as moot, and that this case be dismissed in its entirety. The respondents did not file objections to the report. Objections were due on February 8, 2010. This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. It is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #27). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the respondents' motion to dismiss, (Doc. #13), is hereby GRANTED; the petition to quash, (Doc. #1), is hereby DISMISSED as MOOT; and this case is DISMISSED in its entirety. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Terry L. Wooten United States District Judge February 18, 2010 Florence, South Carolina 2

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?