Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Stephen W. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-22
Citations: 327 F. App'x 512
Docket Number: No. 08-51166
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee v. Stephen W. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 327
Pages: 512–513

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee v. Stephen W. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-51166
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 22, 2009.
Teresa T. Milton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Thomas M.
Herrin, U.S. Department of Justice, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Stephen W. Johnson, El’ Paso, TX, pro se.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Stephen W. Johnson appeals, pro se, a summary judgment granted the Government. He maintains the evidence was inadequate to establish his tax liability, including challenging its admissibility.
"We review de novo the district court's ruling on a motion for summary judgment, applying the same legal standard as the district court in the first instance." Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir.2007). "[W]e must view the facts and the inferences to be drawn from them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party". Wyatt v. Hunt Plywood Co., Inc., 297 F.3d 405, 409 (5th Cir.2002). "The admissibility of evidence is governed by the same rules, whether at trial or on summary judgment." Paz v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc., 555 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Challenges to admission of evidence are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Baker v. Canadian National/Ill. Cent. R.R., 536 F.3d 357, 366 (5th Cir. 2008).
Essentially for the reasons in the district court's thorough and well-reasoned opinion of 25 September 2008, 2008 WL 5683480, the judgment is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5tii Cir. R. 47.5.4.