UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE DI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________ ) HAROL D D. L ONG a

nd ) SHERRI E K. L ONG, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-849 ( PL F) ) UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, et al., ) ) Def endants. ) ____________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON This matter is befor e the Court on the g overnme nt’s motion for partial summary judgme nt on its counterclaims ag ainst plaintiffs (“Mot.”) . The Court pre viously g rante d the g overnme nt’s motion to di smiss pl aintiffs’ c omplaint. See L ong v. United States, 604 F. Supp. 2d 119 (D.D.C. 2009). The g overnme nt’s counter claims ag ainst plaintiff Har old L ongare all that
rema in in this case .

Plaintiffs, who are now pro se, have not r esponded to the g overnme nt’s motion, even thoug h the Court issued an Or der pur suant to Fox v. S trickland, 837 F .2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988) and N eal v. Ke lly , 963 F.2d 453, 456 ( D.C. Cir. 1992), direc ting plaintiffs to re spond to the motion by

Marc h 1, 2010, and informingplaintiffs of the r isks of failingto respond. See Orde r, Dkt. No. 38 (Jan. 26, 2010). Plaintiffs still have not responded to the g overnme nt’s motion, made any

reque st for an e x tension of time, or made any other filingwith the Court in the time since the Court’s Or der. The Court theref ore ma y treat the g overnme nt’s motion as
conce ded. The Court also has consider ed the substanc e of the g overnme nt’s motion and, aftercar eful c onsideration of the motion, the accompa nying e x hibits, and the releva nt case law and statutes, it has conclude d that the motion should be gr anted on its merits.
I . STANDARD OF REVI EW Summary judgme nt may

be g rante d if “the ple ading s, the discover y and disclosure materia ls on file, and any aff idavits [ or dec larations] show that there is no ge nuine issue as to any materia l fac t and that the movant is entitled to judgme nt as a matter of law.” F E D . R. C I V . P. 56(c) ; see a lso Anderson v. L iberty L obby , Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) ; Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889, 895 (D .C. Cir. 2006). “A fa ct is ‘mater ial’ if a dispute ove r it might af fec t the outcome of

a suit under the g overninglaw; fa ctual disputes that ar e ‘irr eleva nt or
unnece ssary ’ do not aff

ect the summar

y judgme nt determination.” H olcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d at 895 (quotingAnder son v. L iberty L obby , Inc., 477 U.S. at 248). A n issue is “g enuine” if the evidenc e is such that a r easona ble jury could re turn a ve rdict for the nonmoving pa

rty . See Scott v. Har ris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007); Ander son v. L iberty L obby , Inc., 477 U.S. at 248; Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d at 895. B eca use plaintiffs have not responded to the g overnme nt’s motion, the Court has treated all of the f acts identified in de fenda nt’s Statement of Mater ial Fa cts as to Which There is No G enuine I ssue as a dmitted pursuant to L ocal Civil Rule 7(h)(1). T he only question befor e the Court, ther efor e, is whethe r these c oncede d fac ts entitle the g overnme nt to judgme nt as a matter

of law. See F E D . R. C I V . P. 56(c). 1
That havingbeen sa id, beca use plaintiffs ar e proc eeding pro se , the Court has 1 evaluated their filing s under “ less stringe nt standards than f ormal plea dings dr afte d by lawy ers.” Chandler v. W.E. Welch & Associates, Inc., 533 F . Supp. 2d 94, 102 (D.D.C. 2008) (quoting Haines v. K erne r

, 404 U.S. 519, 520, (1972)); see also Gra y v. Poole , 275 F.3d 1113, 1115 ( D.C. Cir. 2002). 2I I . DI SCUS SI ON The United States moves f or summary

judgme nt based on its tax assessments ag ainst Mr. L ong . These a ssessments are the I RS’s determination that Mr. L ongowes the f eder al g overnme nt a ce rtain amount of unpa id tax es. See United States v. Fior D’ I talia, 536 U.S. 238, 242 (2002). The tax assessments are pr esumptively corr ect. See Bua iz v. Unit ed States, 521 F
. Supp. 2d 93, 96 (D.D.C. 2007) (c iting United States v. F ior D’Italia, 536 U.S. at 242-43). A
cer tified transc ript which re flec ts the assessment (known a s Form 4340) is presumptive proof of a taxpay er’ s liabilit y . See id. The c ertified tr anscr ipts are se lf-authe nticatingand nee d no extrinsi c evide ntiary

support as a pr edica

te to admissibili ty . See id. (c iting F ed. R. Ev. 902). They may provide a sufficie nt basis for summary judgme nt ag ainst Mr. L ong . See id. The g overnme nt’s tax assessments, which are attache d to its m otion, establish that as of Septembe r 28, 2009, Mr. L ong owed $13,647 in taxes, interest, and pe nalties for the tax y ear endingDec ember

31, 1992. See Mot., Dec laration of Be njamin J . Weir, (“Weir De cl.”) Ex
. 1. He owe d $10,397 in tax es, intere st, and pena lties for the tax y ear endingDec ember

31, 1994. See Weir De cl., Ex. 2. He owed $30,714 in taxes, interest, and pe nalties for the tax y ear ending Dec ember

31, 1994. See Weir De cl., Ex. 3. As of September 28, 2009, Mr. L ong owed a total amount of $54,758, with additional pena lties and interest a ccr uing the rea fter. See Weir Dec l. ¶ 7. The g overnme nt sent notices and de mand for pa y ment for these tax l iabilities in compli ance with 28 U.S.C. § 6303. S ee Mot., Ex. A. Mr. L ong has not paid the full amount due a nd owing
.

3No g enuine issue of materia l fac t exi sts reg ardingMr. L ong ’s liability for unpa id income tax, interest, and pena lties for the tax y ear s 1992, 1994, and 1995. Ac cording ly , the Court will gra

nt the g overnme nt’s motion for partial summary judgme nt. An Orde r to
acc ompany

this Memorandum Opinion shall issue this same day
. _/s/______________________ PAULL . FRI EDMAN United States District J udg e DATE: Apr il 21, 2010

4