Source: http://co.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180321_0000359.DCO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:32:14+00:00

Document:
JOHN KOSKINEN, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, JOHN VENCATO, Revenue Agent, GINGER WRAY, Revenue Agent, GARY MURPHY, Revenue Agent, WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 67] filed on February 20, 2018. The magistrate judge recommends that the Court dismiss plaintiff's claims against both Wells Fargo Bank, NA, and the government defendants. Docket No. 67 at 11. Plaintiff filed a timely objection [Docket No. 69] on March 2, 2018. The United States filed a response to the objection on March 13, 2018. Docket No. 70.
Plaintiff initiated this pro se action on March 1, 2016, challenging the government's efforts to collect unpaid tax liabilities. Docket No. 1. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 8, 2016. Docket No. 10. On May 5, 2016, the court dismissed plaintiff's amended complaint as legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Docket No. 12 at 4. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal most of plaintiff's claims, but reversed and remanded for further consideration of plaintiff's “non-frivolous legal claim that the IRS has improperly levied exempt VA disability benefits by placing a levy on all funds in the bank account where [plaintiff's] disability benefits are deposited.” Maehr v. Koskinen, 664 Fed.Appx. 683, 686 (10th Cir. 2016) (unpublished). On remand, the magistrate judge directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint clarifying his surviving claim. Docket No. 23 at 2. Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint on January 17, 2017. Docket No. 26. On April 13 and 14, 2017, defendants Wells Fargo Bank, NA and the United States filed separate motions to dismiss. Docket Nos. 45, 46. On February 20, 2018, the magistrate judge recommended that both motions be granted on the grounds that: (1) plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to establish a meritorious claim against Wells Fargo; (2) plaintiff's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against the United States are barred by the Anti-Injunction Act (“AIA”), 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a), and the Declaratory Judgment Act (“DJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a); and (3) plaintiff's remaining request for compensatory and punitive damages fails because his claims for equitable relief are legally baseless. Docket No. 67 at 5, 10, 11.
Because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will construe his objection and pleadings liberally without serving as his advocate. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
The magistrate judge recommends that the Court dismiss plaintiff's claims against Wells Fargo based on the Tenth Circuit's determination that the allegations in plaintiff's first amended complaint were insufficient to establish a valid claim for relief against Wells Fargo. Docket No. 67 at 5. The magistrate judge notes that “[p]laintiff's allegations have not changed” on remand, and thus dismissal is appropriate pursuant to the Tenth Circuit's order. Id.
In his objection, plaintiff raises only one argument that could be construed as relevant to the magistrate judge's recommendation on Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff contends that the magistrate judge ignored evidence in the record showing that Wells Fargo had acted unlawfully and in defiance of the Supreme Court's decision in Porter v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 370 U.S. 159 (1962). Docket No. 69 at 11. However, this argument fails to address the magistrate judge's finding that plaintiff's allegations against Wells Fargo are insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Docket No. 67 at 5. Discerning no error in the magistrate judge's determination, the Court will overrule plaintiff's first objection and grant Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss.

References: § 1915
 v. 
 § 7421
 § 2201
 v. 
 v.