S Crow Collateral Corporation v. United States of America, No. 1:2017mc09805 - Document 13 (D. Idaho 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss 10 is GRANTED and the action is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)
Download PDF
S Crow Collateral Corporation v. United States of America Doc. 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO S. CROW COLLATERAL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:17-mc-09805-EJL-REB Petitioner, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; Respondent. INTRODUCTION On October 16, 2017, United States Magistrate Ronald E. Bush issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 10) be granted. (Dkt. 12.) Any party may challenge the Magistrate Judge’s proposed recommendation by filing written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Where the parties object to a report and recommendation, this Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. Where, however, no objections are filed the district court need not conduct a de novo review. “When no objection is filed, the Court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the fact of the record in Dockets.Justia.com order to accept the recommendation.” Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974.)) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” In this case, no objections were filed, therefore the Court reviewed the Report and record for clear error. The Court finds as follows. DISCUSSION On July 5, 2017, Petitioner S. Crow Collateral Corporation filed a Petition to Quash a Summons issued by the Internal Revenue Service. (Dkt. 1.) On August 16, 2017, Respondent moved to dismiss this proceeding under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), specifically arguing that no case or controversy existed as the summons at issue had been withdrawn by the Internal Revenue Service. (Dkt. 10.) On September 5, 2017, Petitioner responded that it did not object to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, but was not “waiv[ing] any rights to seek reasonable litigation costs under 26 U.S.C. § 7430 associated with this action as part of any other matter with which this action could have been joined or consolidated.” (Dkt. 11.) The Report recommended the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be granted and the action dismissed. The Court agrees. After reviewing the Report and record for clear error, the Court agrees with the Report’s recommendation in whole and adopts the same as its own. For the reasons stated in the Report, the Motion to Dismiss is granted. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 10) is GRANTED and the action is DISMISSED. DATED: December 13, 2017 _________________________ Edward J. Lodge United States District Judge