Clarkson v. Commission of Internal Revenue

Filing 76

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS granting 71 Motion to Dismiss filed by United States, mooting 58 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed by United States, adopting 74 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 7/20/10. (awil)

Clarkson v. Commission of Internal Revenue

Doc. 76

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION Robert Barnwell Clarkson, Plaintiff, vs. Commission of Internal Revenue, United States, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No.: 8:09-cv-00928-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this tax refund suit challenging $27,000 in penalties that were imposed on Plaintiff. This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Bruce H. Hendricks, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (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, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not 1

Dockets.Justia.com

required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) stating that "in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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.'" (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note). After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss is granted and all claims of the plaintiff dismissed with prejudice. It is further ordered that the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is mooted. The defendants' counterclaim against the plaintiff is dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/R. Bryan Harwell R. Bryan Harwell United States District Judge Florence, South Carolina July 20, 2010

2