Charles v. United States of America, No. 1:2013mc00049 - Document 13 (W.D. Mich. 2013)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 ; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION FONTRISE CHARLES, Petitioner, Case No. 1:13-mc-49 v. HON. JANET T. NEFF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. _______________________________/ OPINION & ORDER Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash IRS Summons (Dkt 1), which was referred to the Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that this Court deny the petition based on the legal analysis in a related case, Fontrise Charles v. United States of America, No. 1:13-mc-46. The matter is presently before the Court on Petitioner s objections to the Report and Recommendation. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. The Court denies the objections and issues this Opinion and Order. Petitioner argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in determining that the Court should enforce the summons, which was issued using Petitioner s identity information obtained by the IRS through its earlier use of a no-notice summons (Pet r Obj., Dkt 12 at 2). According to Petitioner, in failing to quash the summons, the Court gives its stamp of approval to the IRS s two step process (id. 1 at 6). Petitioner s argument is without merit. For the reasons more fully stated by the Magistrate Judge in the related case (No. 1:13-mc-46, Dkt 15 at 4-9), and adopted by the district court (No. 1:13-mc-46, Dkt 19), even assuming arguendo the no-notice summons was improperly issued, Petitioner has not demonstrated that either the issuance or use of the information obtained provides proper grounds to quash the present IRS summons. Accordingly: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (Dkt 12) are DENIED and the Report and Recommendation (Dkt 11) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition (Dkt 1) is DENIED, and this matter is TERMINATED. 13 Dated: December ___, 2013 /s/ Janet T. Neff JANET T. NEFF United States District Judge 2
]]>
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.
