Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

McDowell v. Internal Revenue Service, 18-4710 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 18-4710 Visitors: 32
Filed: Jun. 27, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1301 CHESTER LEE MCDOWELL, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; CHARLES BARRETT, IRS Agent, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (2:06-cv-00022-FL) Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 27, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublishe
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1301 CHESTER LEE MCDOWELL, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; CHARLES BARRETT, IRS Agent, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (2:06-cv-00022-FL) Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 27, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chester Lee McDowell, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Joan Iris Oppenheimer, Patricia McDonald Bowman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Chester Lee McDowell, Sr. appeals the district court’s order granting defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See McDowell v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 2:06-CV-00022-FL (E.D.N.C. Mar. 26, 2007). We also deny the Government’s motion for sanctions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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