Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Richard Boggs v. United States, 19-2090 (2020)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-2090 Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 04, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 04, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2090 RICHARD E. BOGGS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES; PETER RAE, and coworkers, et al. as individuals; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:18-cv-03506-MGL) Submitted: February 7, 2020 Decided: March 4, 2020 Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Ci
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2090 RICHARD E. BOGGS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES; PETER RAE, and coworkers, et al. as individuals; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:18-cv-03506-MGL) Submitted: February 7, 2020 Decided: March 4, 2020 Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard E. Boggs, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce R. Ellisen, Curtis Clarence Pett, Tax Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Richard E. Boggs appeals the district court’s orders adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss and denying Boggs’ motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Boggs v. United States, No. 3:18-cv-03506-MGL (D.S.C. Aug. 8 & Sept. 4, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer