Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00248/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00248-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7422 IRS: Refund Taxes

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Donald D. Bailey and Sandra M. Bailey,

Plaintiffs,

v.

United States of America, 

Defendant, _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 12-248 TUC DCB

O R D E R

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro, on June 6, 2012.

Pursuant to Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, District of Arizona (Local

Rules), Rule (Civil) 72.1(a), he issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on December 19,

2012. (Doc. 27: R&R). He recommends dismissing the case for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction and because it is barred by a two-year statute of limitation period.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The duties of the district court, when reviewing a R&R by a Magistrate Judge, are set

forth in Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district

court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made

by the magistrate judge.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When the parties object

to a Report and Recommendation (R&R), “‘[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made.’” Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). When no objections are filed, the

district court does not need to review the R&R de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000

n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir.2003) (en

banc).

Case 4:12-cv-00248-DCB Document 30 Filed 02/01/13 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

The parties were sent copies of the R&R and instructed they had 14 days to file written

objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), see also, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 72 (party objecting

to the recommended disposition has fourteen (14) days to file specific, written objections). On

December 28, 2012, the Plaintiffs sought an extension of time because they did not receive a

copy of the R&R and did not know of its issuance until they checked the case docket on

December 27, 2012, and they wanted time to consult an attorney and conduct research related

to objecting to the R&R. (Motion for Extension (Doc. 28)).

After comparing the case docket with the address on the Motion for Extension, the Court

concluded that the Plaintiffs had changed their address but failed to notify the Court. The Court

granted the extension to January 22, 2013, and directed that no further extensions would be

granted unless Plaintiffs secured counsel, who might need a further extension to become

familiar with the case. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Honorable D. Thomas Ferraro, United States Magistrate Judge, found this Court

lacks jurisdiction over this case because Plaintiffs named only the United States as the sole

defendant. “The United States is immune from suit and this Court does not have jurisdiction

except to the extent the United States has expressly waived its sovereign immunity.” (R&R at

3 (citation omitted). Plaintiff may only bring a Bivens action against federal agents, not the

United States. Id. The Magistrate Judge found that it would be futile to allow the Plaintiffs to

amend the Complaint to name Internal Revenue Agent Hale or any other IRS agent. A two-year

statute of limitation bars the evidence alleged by the Plaintiffs to reflect that Agent Hale

perjured herself when she testified against the Baileys during a civil bench trial before the

Honorable Cindy K Jorgenson in 2007. 

This Court does not repeat, here, the discussion and analysis provided by Magistrate

Judge Ferraro in the R&R. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court makes a de novo determination as to those

portions of the R&R to which there are objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A judge of the court

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed

Case 4:12-cv-00248-DCB Document 30 Filed 02/01/13 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

findings and recommendations to which objection is made.") To the extent that no objection

has been made, arguments to the contrary have been waived. McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185,

1187 (9th Cir. 1980) (failure to object to Magistrate's report waives right to do so on appeal); see

also, Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist.

Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974) (when no timely objection is filed, the court need only

satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the

recommendation).

While there are no objections and review has, therefore, been waived, the Court

nevertheless reviews at a minimum, de novo, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law.

Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449,

455 (9th Cir. 1998) (conclusions of law by a magistrate judge reviewed de novo); Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to object standing alone will not ordinarily

waive question of law, but is a factor in considering the propriety of finding waiver)). The

Court finds the R&R to be thorough and well-reasoned, without any clear error in law or fact.

See United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617-618 (9th Cir. 1989) (United States v. Remsing,

874 F.2d 614, 617-618 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) as providing for district

court to reconsider matters delegated to magistrate judge when there is clear error or

recommendation is contrary to law). The Court accepts and adopts the R&R as the opinion of

the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For the reasons stated in the R&R, the Court

grants the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. # 27] is adopted as the

opinion of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss [9] is GRANTED.

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 4:12-cv-00248-DCB Document 30 Filed 02/01/13 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 31st day of January, 2013.

Case 4:12-cv-00248-DCB Document 30 Filed 02/01/13 Page 4 of 4