Filed: Jul. 29, 1997
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: Circuit Judges.Rene J. Nadeau on brief pro se.of Justice, on brief for appellee.appellant's request for oral argument.Information Act.Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 142 (1989).party [was] entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.plaintiff's claim for injunction against tax collection.
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 97-1338
RENE J. NADEAU,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Nancy J. Gertner, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Boudin and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.
Rene J. Nadeau on brief pro se.
Donald
K.
Stern, United States Attorney, Loretta
C.
Argrett,
Assistant Attorney General, Teresa E. McLaughlin, Tax Division,
Department of Justice, and Robert W. Metzler, Tax Division, Department
of Justice, on brief for appellee.
July 29, 1997
Per
Curiam. Upon careful review, it appears that the
facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the
briefs and record and that our decision would not be
significantly aided by oral argument. Accordingly, we deny
appellant's request for oral argument. See 1st Cir. Loc. R.
34.1.
We conclude that summary judgment was properly entered for
the IRS with respect to plaintiff's claim under the Freedom of
Information Act. Jurisdiction to grant relief under 5 U.S.C.
S 552(a)(4)(B) exists only if there is "a showing that an
agency has (1) 'improperly' (2) 'withheld' (3) 'agency
records.'" United
States
Department
of
Justice v. Tax
Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 142 (1989). Here, in moving for
summary judgment, the IRS presented affidavits establishing
that there were no additional documents to be disclosed; in
response, plaintiff relied on only conclusory statements and
unsupported speculation. In those circumstances, there was no
"genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving
party [was] entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Medina-Munoz v. R.J.
Reynolds
Tobacco
Co., 896 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1990).
The Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. S 7421(a), bars
plaintiff's claim for injunction against tax collection.
Neither the statutory nor the judicial exceptions to that Act
-2-
have any application here. See Enochs v. Williams
Packing
&
Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 7 (1962).
Plaintiff has not briefed appellate arguments regarding
his claims for a refund of amounts already collected and for
damages, and those claims do not merit further discussion here.
We also deny plaintiff's requests for orders "stopping"
the levy and refunding amounts already collected and for
reconsideration of the denial of a temporary injunction pending
appeal.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
-3-
