United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
Anthony G. Bryant, and Bryant Group, Inc., Plaintiffs,
Internal Revenue Service, Beth Drake, U.S. Attorney for the District of South Carolina, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Attorney General of the United States, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Margaret B. Seymour Senior United States District Judge
March 5, 2018, pro se Plaintiffs Anthony G. Bryant and Bryant
Group, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action
against the Internal Revenue Service; Beth Drake, U.S.
Attorney for the District of South Carolina; the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development; and the Attorney
General of the United States (“Defendants”).
While difficult to discern from the pleadings, it appears
that Plaintiffs take issue with an Internal Revenue service
notice of tax deficiency issued to Plaintiffs for filing
frivolous tax returns. ECF No. 9-1. 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 Mary
Gordon Baker for pretrial handling. This matter is now before
the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and
RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
filed this action on March 5, 2018. In their complaint,
Plaintiffs asserted the following as their statement of
Internal Revenue Code 6702, 6109, Internal Revenue Service
assigned identity protection 2012 - 2016 PIN for you. Notice
2014 PIN 131835 2010 Justice Department Inspector General
mentioned Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of
ECF No. 1 at 5.
March 7, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a proper form
order, giving Plaintiffs until March 28, 2018 to correct
their complaint. ECF No. 5. The Magistrate Judge further
ordered that corporate Plaintiff Bryant Group, Inc. obtain
counsel no later than April 10, 2018. ECF No. 7. On March 13,
2018, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. ECF No. 9.
Plaintiffs asserted the following as a statement of claims:
$205, 371 Justice Department, HUD and EPA 1977 Inspector
General complaint grantors and grantees 2010 letter
mentioning Homeland Security 22 Federal Agencies filed 3949A
ECF No. 9 at 5.
filed a motion for extension of time to obtain counsel for
Plaintiff Bryant Group Inc. on March 26, 2018. ECF No. 14. On
March 27, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a second proper
form order, instructing Plaintiffs to bring the case into
proper form by April 17, 2018. ECF No. 15. On March 28, 2018,
the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiffs' motion for an
extension of time, giving Plaintiffs until May 10, 2018 to
obtain counsel for Plaintiff Bryant Group, Inc. ECF No. 17.
Plaintiff filed another motion for extension of time on April
16, 2018. ECF No. 28. The Magistrate Judge granted that
motion on May 2, 2018, giving Plaintiff Bryant Group, Inc.
until June 10, 2018 to obtain counsel. ECF No. 32. Plaintiff
Bryant Group, Inc. never obtained counsel.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
September 18, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiff's complaint
summarily be dismissed with prejudice. ECF No. 57. The
Magistrate Judge determined that a review of Plaintiffs'
complaint indicates “multiple grounds for summary
dismissal.” Id. at 11. The Magistrate Judge
first determined that, pursuant to the Anti-Injunction Act,
Plaintiffs were barred from bringing a suit to enjoin tax
collection. Id. at 6. Next, the Magistrate Judge
determined that as a corporate party, Plaintiff Bryant Group,
Inc. required counsel to proceed. Id. at 7. The
Magistrate Judge further found that Plaintiffs failed to
state a claim, stating that “[e]ven liberally
construing the allegations of the Amended Complaint, it is
difficult, if not impossible, to discern any actual
claims.” Id. Next, the Magistrate Judge found
that Plaintiffs' case is duplicative of another case
currently before the court. Id. at 8. Finally, the
Magistrate Judge determined that Defendants are entitled to
prosecutorial and sovereign immunity. Id. at 9-11.
Pursuant to Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005), Plaintiffs were
advised of their rights to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. Id. at 12.
Plaintiffs' Objections to the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation
September 24, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an objection to the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 59.
Plaintiffs do not indicate that the Magistrate Judge erred in
any way with her Report and Recommendation. Instead,
Plaintiffs appear to reject the Magistrate Judge's
liberal reading of their pleadings, stating that they do not
“want the Court to be [their] advocate based upon the
fact the in 1896 South Carolina was allowed to adversely take
our rights in accordance with the 1868 South Carolina
Constitution.” Id. at 1 (errors in original).
Plaintiffs then proceed to assert what appears ...