FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT SEPTEMBER 26, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 11115 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 0 8 9 - C V- F T M- 2 9 - DN F J O S E P H W . D O RN , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , D I S C L O S U R E O F F I C E R S , F t. M y e r s , F L , D I S C L O S U R E O F F I C E R S , A tla n ta , G e o r g ia , D I S C L O S U R E O F F I C E R S , J a c k s o n v ille , F L , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 26, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , B A R K E T T an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es.2

P E R C U R I A M: J os e ph D orn appe a l s pr o s e the s um m a ry j udgm e nta ga i ns thi s c om pl a i ntf or an i ncom e t ax re fund , se e 26 U . S . C . § 7 42 2, and d am ages for w rong ful t ax col l ec t i on , se e 26 U . S . C . § 7 43 3. A l tho ug h D orn argues the m er i t s of hi s t ax l i abi l i ty, w e m ustdeci de w hether the di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y e nt er ed sum m ary ju d g m e n t o n th e g r o u n d th a t D o rn f a ile d to e x h au s t h is a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s . W e a f f irm . W e r e vi e w as um m a ry j udgm e ntde novo a nd appl y the s a m e l e ga l s t a nda r ds as the di stri ctcourt . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. M ou ntS i nai M edi ca l C ent erof F l ori da, I n c ., 4 8 6 F .3 d 1 2 4 8 , 1 2 5 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . T he di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y det erm i ned thati tl ac ked subj ec tm att er j uri sdi ct i on ov erD orn’ s c l ai m for at ax re fund , se e 26 U . S . C . § 7 42 2. T he U ni t ed S t at es , as a s ov er ei gn , i s i m m un e f rom sui tun l es s i tconsent s t o b e s ued. U ni t ed S t a t e s v. D a l m , 494 U . S . 596, 608, 110 S . C t . 1361, 1368 ( 1990) . “ T he t e rm s of [ the U ni t e d S t a t e ’ s ] c ons e ntt o be s ue d i n a ny c our tde f i ne tha tc our t ’ s j ur i s di c t i on to e n te r ta in th e s u it.” U n ite d S ta te s v . S h e rw o o d , 3 1 2 U .S . 5 8 4 , 5 8 6

– 8 7 , 6 1 S . C t. 767, 769 ( 1941) . T he U ni t e d S t a t e s ha s w a i ve d i t s s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty t o a l l ow t axpaye rs t o fi l e s ui tfor t ax re fund s, se e 28 U . S . C . § 1 34 6(a) (1), bu tthe t axpaye r m us tf i r s tf i l e a n a dm i ni s tr a t i ve c l a i m f orthe r e f und “ a c c or di ng t o the pr ovi s i ons of3

l aw , ” s ee 26 U . S . C . § 7 42 2. “ If the re qu i re m ent s of § 74 22 (a ) are no tm et , a c ou rt ha s no s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on t o he a rthe c l a i m f orr e f und. ” W a c hovi aB a nk, N .A . v . U n ite d S ta te s , 4 5 5 F .3 d 1 2 6 1 , 1 2 6 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . T he di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y det erm i ned thati tl ac ked subj ec tm att er j uri sdi ct i on t o h ear D orn’ s c om pl ai ntfor at ax re fund because D orn fai l ed t o fi l e an a dm i ni s tr a t i ve c l a i m f

orr e f und. S e e W a c hovi aB a nk, 455 F . 3d a t1264. A l though W a c h o v iaB a n ka d d r e s s e d th e f a ilu r e o f ata x p a y e rto f

ile ac la im f

o rr e f u n d w ith in the e s t abl i s he d t i m e l i m i t , s e e i d. a t1263–64, i t s r e a s oni ng a l s o appl i e s w he r e the ta x p a y e rf

ile d n o c la im f

o rr e f u n d . T he di s tr i c tc ourta l s o c orr e c t l y e nt e r e d j udgm e nta ga i ns tD orn’ s c l a i m f or dam ages un der s ec t i on 74 33 . S ec t i on 74 33 , l i ke se ct i on 74 22 , re qu i re s that a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s b e e x h au s te d : (1) R e qui r e m e nt t ha t a dm i ni s t r a t i v e r e m e di e s be e x ha us t e d. A j udgm e ntf

orda m a ge s s ha l l notbe a w a r de d unde rs ubs e c t i on ( b) unl e s s the c ourtde t e rm i ne s tha tthe pl a i nt i f f ha s e xhaus t e d the adm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es avai l abl e t o such p l ai nt i ff w i thi n the Int ernal R e v e n u e S e rv ic e . S e e 26 U . S . C . § 7433( d) ( 1) . B e c aus e D orn f a i l e d t o e xhaus thi s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve re m ed ies, th e d istrict co u rt co rr ec tl y e n tere d su m m ar y ju d g m en t ag ain st D o rn ’s c o m p la in t f

o rd a m a g e s . D o rn ’s r e m a in in g a r g u m e n ts a ls o f a il. C o n tr a ry to D o rn ’s c o n te n tio n , it is4

w el l se tt l ed thatF eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 56 (c ) does notre qu i re an oral h e a r in g . S e e M ilb u rn v . U n ite d S ta te s , 7 3 4 F .2 d 7 6 2 , 7 6 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) . “R a th e r , 1 0 - d a y a d v a n c e n o tic e to th e a d v e r s e p a r ty th a t th e m o tio n a n d a ll m at er i al s i n sup po rtof or i n o pp osi t i on t o the m ot i on w i l l be t aken un der a dvi s e m e ntby the tr i a l c ourta s of ac e r t a i n da y s a t i s f

i e s the not i c e a nd he a r i ng di c t a t e s of

R ul e 56. ” I d. ( quot a t i on a nd e m pha s i s om i tt e d) . T he di s tr i c tc our tga ve n o tic e th a t am o tio n f

o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t h a d b e e n f ile d , n o o r a l h e a r in g w o u ld t a ke pl a c e , a nd the di s tr i c tc ourtw oul d “ c ons i de r[ the ] m ot i on a nd t a ke the m ot i on un der a dv i se m enttw enty ( 20 ) day s a ft erthe m ot i on [w as ] fi l ed. ” T o th e e x te n t D o rn a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d w h e n it d is m is s e d h is com pl ai ntagai nstthe i nd i vi du al defe nd ant s, hi s argum entagai n fai l s. T he di stri ct co u rtd i d n o terr w h en i td i sm i ssed w i th o u tp rej u d i ce th e co m p l ai n tag ai n stC . S i l l s, D eborah M ac M i l l an, and M el ani e R om ano b ec ause there i s no evi dence thatD orn e f f e c t i ve l y s e rve d the m . T he di s tr i c tc our ta l s o c orr e c t l y di s m i s s e d the c om pl a i nt a ga i ns tthe r e m a i ni ng i ndi vi dua l de f e nda nt s be c aus e D orn’ s c om pl a i nts ought da m a ge s f

orw r ongf

ul a s s e s s m e nta nd c ol l e c t i on. S e c t i on 7433 pr ovi de s the e xc l us i ve r e m e dy f

orthe s e a l l e ge d w r ongs i n the f orm of ac i vi l a c t i on a ga i ns tthe U n ite d S ta te s . S e e 2 6 U .S .C . § 7 4 3 3 . F i nal l y, even l i bera l l y c on strui ng D orn’ s bri ef , se e T annenb aum v. U ni t ed5

S t a t e s , 148 F . 3d 1262, 1263 ( 11th C i r . 1998) , D orn aba ndons a ny a r gum e ntabout the di s m i s s a l of

hi s r e m a i ni ng c l a i m s , s e e 26 U . S . C . §§ 7426, 7431. S e e A l l i s on v. M c G h a n M e d ic a l C o rp ., 1 8 4 F .3 d 1 3 0 0 , 1 3 1 7 n .1 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . T h e s u m m ary ju d g m e n t is AF F I RME D.