United States of America v. Bacon, No. 1:2011cv01250 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE: I.R.S. SUMMONS ENFORCEMENT; ORDERED ENFORCEMENT of I.R.S. Summons Issued to Respondent; ORDERED that Respondent, Nathan D. Bacon, appear before investigating Revenue Officer Michael Nicholas, or hi s designated representative, as the I.R.S. offices at 1533 Lakewood Avenue, Modesto, California 95355, 21 days after the issuance of this order, at 10:00 a.m., or such later date and time to be set by Revenue Officer Nicholas, then and there to be sw orn, to give testimony, and to produce for examination and copying the books, checks, records, papers and other data demanded by the summons; The examination shall continue from day to day until completed, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 01/14/2012. (This order and any future orders will be served by mail to Mr. Nicholas D. Bacon as provided in this order)(Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
United States of America v. Bacon Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 10 11 12 CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01250-AWI-SMS Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND ENFORCING I.R.S. SUMMONS v. NATHAN D. BACON, 13 Respondent. (Doc. 12) / 14 15 16 The United States petitioned for enforcement of an I.R.S. summons issued by Revenue 17 Officer Martha Rodriguez to Respondent Nathan D. Bacon. The matter was referred to United 18 States Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 et seq. and Local Rule 19 72-302. 20 On August 2, 2011, the Magistrate Judge ordered Respondent to show cause why the 21 22 I.R.S. summons issued to him on January 7, 2011, should not be enforced. The Petitioner served 23 Respondent with the Petition, Points and Authorities, and Order to Show Cause in conformity 24 with F.R.Civ.P. 4. Respondent neither filed an opposition to enforcement under paragraph 3, 25 page 2 of the order to show cause nor appeared at the November 16, 2011 hearing before the 26 Magistrate Judge. 27 -1- Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 On November 23, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations, finding that the summons enforcement requirements had been satisfied and recommending 3 enforcement of the summons. Petitioner served Respondent by mail with the Findings and 4 5 6 7 8 9 Recommendations on December 19, 2011. The Findings and Recommendations provided ten days for the filing of objections. Neither party filed objections. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 10 11 12 Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis, and determines that the summons enforcement is properly granted. 13 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS: 14 1. 15 The Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations Re: I.R.S. Summons Enforcement, filed November 23, 2011, are hereby adopted in full. 16 17 18 2. The I.R.S. summons issued to Respondent is hereby enforced. 3. Respondent, Nathan D. Bacon, is ordered to appear before investigating Revenue 19 Officer Michael Nicholas, or his designated representative, as the I.R.S. offices at 20 1533 Lakewood Avenue, Modesto, California 95355, 21 days after the issuance of 21 this order, at 10:00 a.m., or such later date and time to be set by Revenue Officer 22 23 Nicholas, then and there to be sworn, to give testimony, and to produce for 24 examination and copying the books, checks, records, papers and other data 25 demanded by the summons. The examination shall continue from day to day until 26 completed. 27 -2- 1 2 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve this and future orders by mail to Mr. 3 Nicholas D. Bacon, 30019 Westlake Drive, Menifee, CA 92584. 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: 0m8i78 8 January 14, 2012 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 -3-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.