Court Opinion

ID: 2966100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:48:51.298515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:47.180711
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit

No. 99-1400

                        MICHAEL A. SCOTT,

                      Petitioner, Appellant,

                                v.

      INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY;
                          UNITED STATES,

                     Respondents, Appellees.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

            [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

                     Torruella, Chief Judge,
                Stahl and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
     Michael Scott on brief pro se.
     Loretta C. Argrett, Assistant Attorney General, Frank P.
Cihlar, John A. Dudeck, Jr., Attorneys, Tax Division, Department of
Justice, and Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, on brief for
appellees.

December 14, 1999

                                
            Per Curiam. Pro se taxpayer Michael Scott appeals
  from the district court's decision denying his petition to
  quash certain Internal Revenue Service summonses and granting
  the government's request to enforce certain summonses.  After
  careful review of the appellant's and government's briefs, we
  conclude, for the reasons given by the government, that
  appellant's claims of error lack merit.  We also conclude,
  essentially for the reasons given by the magistrate judge in
  his November 13, 1998 order, which the district court adopted
  after de novo review as its final order on February 9, 1999,
  that the petition to quash was properly denied and the request
  for enforcement properly granted.
            Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27(c).