Babb v. IRS Inc et al

Filing 18

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 14 Report and Recommendations. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Austin; the complaint is summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 4/24/12. (sfla)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
SPARTANBURG DIVISION

Jerry W. Babb,
Plaintiff,
vs.
IRS, Inc.; Felisha S. Tipton; Debra K.
Hurst; Mary Hannah,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 7:12-209-HMH-JDA

OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Proceeding pro se, Jerry W. Babb
commenced this civil action against the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and three of its
individual agents. Babb raises numerous claims against Defendants, including claims sounding
in tort as well as multiple violations of his constitutional rights. Following a thorough review of
the allegations in Babb’s complaint, Magistrate Judge Austin recommends that the complaint be
summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Babb filed
objections to the Report and Recommendation on April 18, 2012.

1

The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final
determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which 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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

Objections to the Report and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific
objections constitutes a waiver of a party’s right to further judicial review, including appellate
review, if the recommendation is accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce,
727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of specific 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).
Upon review, the court finds that Babb’s objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation are non-specific and unrelated to the dispositive portions of the Report.
Therefore, after a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this
case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Austin’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates
it herein.

2

It is therefore
ORDERED that Babb’s complaint is summarily dismissed without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
April 24, 2012

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty
(30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.

3