Opinion
C-1-11-148
03-07-2013
KENNETH B. PITCHER, et al., Plaintiffs v. LAWRENCE WALDMAN, et al., Defendants
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 95), defendants' objections (doc. no. 98), plaintiffs' response (doc. no. 102) and defendants' reply (doc. no. 103). The Magistrate Judge recommended that plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. no. 45) be denied. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. no. 50) be granted solely with respect to the issue of punitive damages, which are not recoverable under 26 U.S.C. §7434. In all other respects, defendants' Motion should be denied.
Defendants object to the Judge's Report and Recommendation on the grounds that her findings are contrary to law. Specifically, defendants argue that the Magistrate erred in denying their Motion for Summary Judgment because the record failed to support a conclusion that the information returns were issued in error; failed to support a conclusion that the information returns were issued fraudulently; and, failed to support a conclusion that defendants acted "willfully" within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 7434.
Plaintiffs argue that defendants' objection should be overruled because the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 95) is entitled to judicial deference and defendants have not identified any procedural or legal defect to warrant overruling the Magistrate Judge's decision. The Magistrate Judge correctly determined that there are sufficient disputed material facts to warrant denial of defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
CONCLUSION
Upon a de novo review of the record, especially in light of defendants' objections, the Court finds that defendants' objections have either been adequately addressed and properly disposed of by the Magistrate Judge or present no particularized arguments that warrant specific responses by this Court. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge has accurately set forth the controlling principles of law and properly applied them to the particular facts of this case and agrees with the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS AND INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE HEREIN the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 95). Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. no. 45) is DENIED. Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. no. 50) is GRANTED solely with respect to the issue of punitive damages, which are not recoverable under 26 U.S.C. §7434. In all other respects, defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
This case shall proceed to trial as previously scheduled by the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________
Herman J. Weber, Senior Judge
United States District Court