Court Opinion

ID: 2964790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:31:08.27501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:01.761301
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                ____________________
       No. 97-1338
                                   RENE J. NADEAU,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,
                                         v.
                              INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
                             DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
                                Defendant, Appellee.
                                ____________________
                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
                    [Hon. Nancy J. Gertner, U.S. District Judge]
                                ____________________
                                       Before
                               Selya, Boudin and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                ____________________
            Rene J. Nadeau on brief pro se.
            Donald  
                   K.  
                       Stern, United States Attorney,    Loretta  
                                                                 C.  
                                                                     Argrett,
       Assistant Attorney General,    Teresa  E.  McLaughlin, Tax Division,
       Department of Justice, and Robert W. Metzler, Tax Division, Department
       of Justice, on brief for appellee.
                                ____________________
                                    July 29, 1997
                                ____________________

                 Per 
                     Curiam. Upon careful review, it appears that the
            facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the
            briefs and record and that our decision would not be
            significantly aided by oral argument. Accordingly, we    deny
            appellant's request for oral argument.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R.
            34.1.
                 We conclude that summary judgment was properly entered for
            the IRS with respect to plaintiff's claim under the Freedom of
            Information Act. Jurisdiction to grant relief under 5 U.S.C.
            S 552(a)(4)(B) exists only if there is "a showing that an
            agency has (1) 'improperly' (2) 'withheld' (3) 'agency
            records.'"   United  
                                 States  
                                         Department  
                                                     of  
                                                         Justice v.   Tax
            Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 142 (1989). Here, in moving for
            summary judgment, the IRS presented affidavits establishing
            that there were no additional documents to be disclosed; in
            response, plaintiff relied on only conclusory statements and
            unsupported speculation. In those circumstances, there was no
            "genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving
            party [was] entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."   See
            Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Medina-Munoz v. R.J. 
                                                        Reynolds 
                                                                  Tobacco
            Co., 896 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1990).
                 The Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. S 7421(a), bars
            plaintiff's claim for injunction against tax collection.
            Neither the statutory nor the judicial exceptions to that Act
                                         -2-

            have any application here.  See Enochs v. Williams 
                                                               Packing 
                                                                        &
            Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 7 (1962).
                 Plaintiff has not briefed appellate arguments regarding
            his claims for a refund of amounts already collected and for
            damages, and those claims do not merit further discussion here.
                 We also deny plaintiff's requests for orders "stopping"
            the levy and refunding amounts already collected and for
            reconsideration of the denial of a temporary injunction pending
            appeal.
                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                                         -3-