United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
Mike H. Samadi, Plaintiff,
United States of America, Defendant.
ORDER AND OPINION
Margaret B. Seymour Senior United States District Judge.
Mike H. Samadi, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed a complaint on February 24, 2016, alleging that
Defendant United States of America miscalculated amounts due
with respect to his income taxes. Plaintiff seeks tax refunds
for the years 2002 and 2003; a partial refund for 2004; and a
refund for 2008, as well as compensatory damages for his time
and expenses attempting to communicate with Defendant. In
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02,
D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Paige J. Gossett for pretrial handling.
filed a motion to dismiss on August 16, 2016, asserting that
the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that
Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim for relief.
By order filed August 17, 2016, pursuant to Roseboro v.
Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975),
Plaintiff was advised of the dismissal procedures and the
possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately.
Plaintiff filed a response in opposition on October 17, 2016,
to which Defendant filed a reply on October 27, 2016.
November 28, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation in which she observed that plaintiff must file
suit within two years of the date the notice of disallowance
is mailed to the plaintiff from the Secretary of the
Treasury. See 26 U.S.C. § 6532. The Magistrate
Judge further noted that a plaintiff seeking to institute a
law suit for the recovery of a tax refund must first file a
claim for a refund with the Secretary of the Treasury.
See 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a). The Magistrate Judge
determined that Plaintiff's claims regarding his 2002 and
2003 tax refunds are untimely. The Magistrate Judge further
determined that Plaintiff failed to file an administrative
claim as to his 2004 tax refund. For these reasons, the
Magistrate Judge found that the court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims concerning his 2002,
2003, and 2004 tax refunds.
Plaintiff's 2008 tax refund, the Magistrate Judge
concluded that Plaintiff stated a plausible claim for relief.
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that
Defendant's motion to dismiss be granted with respect to
the 2002, 2003, and 2004 tax refunds, and that
Defendant's motion to dismiss be denied with respect to
the 2008 refund.
December 8, 2016, Plaintiff objected to the Report and
Recommendation regarding the 2002 and 2003 tax refunds.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant extended Plaintiff's
time to bring an action when it provided him with
disallowment letters dated August 26, 2014. According to
Plaintiff, his complaint timely was filed within two years of
the August 26, 2014 letter.
filed a reply in part to the Report and Recommendation on
December 14, 2016. Defendant argued that Plaintiff and his
former spouse filed two amended joint income tax returns for
tax year 2004, each reporting a refund owed. Defendant stated
that it acknowledged the returns constituted an
administrative claim for refund, and that full refunds were
issued. Defendant contended that, consequently,
Plaintiff's claim for a 2004 tax refund should be denied
as moot. Defendant requested the Magistrate Judge to clarify
the rationale for her ruling with regard to the 2004 tax
December 22, 2016, Defendant filed a response in opposition
to Plaintiff's objection regarding his 2002 and 2003 tax
refunds. Defendant notes, among other things, that Plaintiff
was sent two notices of disallowance regarding the claims for
refund for tax years 2002 and 2003, the first of these dated
May 22, 2008. Defendant asserts that the second notices did
not extend the two-year period for filing a refund action
before the federal court. See 26 U.S.C. §
6532(a)(4). Defendant therefore asserts that the Magistrate
Judge did not err in determining that Plaintiff's claims
for his 2002 and 2003 taxes are untimely.
December 22, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Supplemental
Report and Recommendation in which she made the following
To the extent [Plaintiff] bases his 2004 tax refund claim on
a third claim for a tax refund, [Plaintiff] failed to file a
second amended tax return for that year, as demonstrated by
the certified official record provided by the defendant in an
attachment to its motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the court
would not have subject matter jurisdiction over such a claim.
To the extent [Plaintiff] alleges he received only partial
payment for the refunds he sought for tax year 2004, he has
failed to state a plausible claim upon which relief can be
granted. Specifically, [Plaintiff] fails to provide any facts
or bases that would support a plausible claim that his 2004
tax refund was incorrect.
ECF No. 45, 1-2 (internal citations omitted).
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The
responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270
(1976). This court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This court may
also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. Id. This court
is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of
the Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have
been filed. Id.
initial matter, the court notes that Plaintiff did not object
to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation regarding his
2004 tax refund, and that no party objected to the Magistrate
Judge's clarification as set forth in the Supplemental
Report and Recommendation. Further, neither party objected to
the Magistrate Judge's recommendation regarding the 2008
tax refund. In the absence of a timely filed objection, a
district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead
must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Dia ...