United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND
J. JONKER CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 39) and Plaintiff's Objections
(ECF Nos. 46 & 47). Under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, where, as here, a party has objected to portions
of a Report and Recommendation, “[t]he district judge .
. . has a duty to reject the magistrate judge's
recommendation unless, on de novo reconsideration, he or she
finds it justified.” 12 Wright, Miller, & Marcus,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 3070.2, at 381 (2d ed.
1997). Specifically, the Rules provide that:
[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly
objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify
the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or
return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review in these circumstances
requires at least a review of the evidence before the
Magistrate Judge. Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d
1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981). The Court has reviewed de novo
the claims and evidence presented to the Magistrate Judge;
the Report and Recommendation itself; and Appellant's
objections. After its review, the Court finds that Magistrate
Judge Green's Report and Recommendation is factually
sound and legally correct.
Magistrate recommends that judgment be entered dismissing all
of Plaintiff's claims against Defendants for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, and that Defendants' pending
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 19) and Plaintiff's
pending motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 26) be
dismissed. In particular, the Report and Recommendation
concludes that Plaintiff's claims are barred by operation
of the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a) and
the Declaratory Judgment Act 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a).
Plaintiff makes several objections related to the application
of the Tax Anti-Injunction act to his claim, none of which
undermine the Report and Recommendations' analysis and
first objects that, in considering the Tax Anti-Injunction
Act sua sponte, the Magistrate Judge sprung a
“surprise” and raised an argument that was never
put forward by Defendants. This contention is entirely
without merit. Plaintiff has failed to cite any statute in
which the United States has waived its sovereign immunity
with respect to the allegations in his Complaint. Moreover,
the Magistrate Judge correctly held that Plaintiff's
claims were barred by law. “The Tax Anti-Injunction Act
. . . prevents suits brought ‘for the purpose of
restraining the assessment or collection of any
tax.'” Agility Network Services, Inc.,
v. United States, 848 F.3d 790, 796 (6th Cir. 2017).
“Thus, to the extent [Plaintiff] sought injunctive
relief concerning the future withholding of taxes from [his]
wages, the action is barred.” Dunlap v. Lew,
No. 16-3658, 2017 WL 9496075, at *2 (6th Cir. June 2, 2017).
The Sixth Circuit has also rejected claims that the Tax
Anti-Injunction Act does not apply to constitutional claims.
Id. Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks a
determination by the Court on his federal tax liabilities,
the Court agrees with the Magistrate that the Declaratory
Judgment Act prohibits such a determination. See
Hill v. I.R.S., 991 F.2d 795 (table), 1993 WL
94001, at *1 (6th Cir. 1993). Finally, the Magistrate Judge
did not err in reviewing the Complaint and applying the above
considerations to conclude that this matter must be dismissed
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. “[F]ederal
courts have a duty to consider their subject matter
jurisdiction in regard to every case and may raise the issue
sua sponte.” Answers in Genesis of Ky., Inc. v.
Creation Ministries Int'l, Ltd., 556 F.3d 459, 465
(6th Cir. 2009). In sum, the Magistrate Judge properly
considered and applied the law in this case.
last set of objections is to the form of the Report and
Recommendation. Plaintiff contends that the Report and
Recommendation understates the facts of the case, fails to
accurately summarize the proceedings, and is misleading.
These contentions are largely gibberish and merely present
variations of tax protest arguments that have been soundly
rejected by the courts. See, e.g., Baird v.
Ammiyhuwd, No. 1:16-cv-1152, 2017 WL 430772, at *2 (S.D.
Ohio Jan. 31, 2017). Therefore, Plaintiff's objections
are without merit and do not affect the disposition of the
case, which is properly dismissed for the reasons recited by
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF
No. 39) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the
opinion of This Court.
2. Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19) and
Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No.
26) are DISMISSED,
3. This action is DISMISSED in its entirely
for to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction A separate