Case Name: James Edward LEAF, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security; Douglas H. Schulman, Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service; United States of America, Internal Revenue Service, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-21
Citations: 413 F. App'x 724
Docket Number: No. 10-41068
Parties: James Edward LEAF, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security; Douglas H. Schulman, Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service; United States of America, Internal Revenue Service, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 413
Pages: 724–725

Head Matter:
James Edward LEAF, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security; Douglas H. Schulman, Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service; United States of America, Internal Revenue Service, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-41068
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 21, 2011.
James Edward Leaf, Sweeny, TX, pro se.
Julie Nayar Searle, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, Sara Ann Ketchum, Steven W. Parks, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC, Joseph A. Pitzinger, III, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant James Edward Leaf, a tax protester, appeals the Final Judgment of the district court ordei'ing that he take nothing, that his action be dismissed with prejudice, and that the government recover costs. We affirm.
The aforesaid judgment was issued on the same day that the district court issued its Order Adopting Report and Recommendation of the September 22, 2010, 2010 WL 5867790, Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge which succinctly but completely analyzed the futility, in fact and in law, of Plaintiff-Appellant's action. We have reviewed that Report and Recommendation as well as the briefs of the parities and the record on appeal and the applicable law, as a result of which we are satisfied beyond cavil that the judgment of the district court should be — and hereby is — affirmed in all respects.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.