Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Jacobs v. IRS, 07-1359 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-1359 Visitors: 15
Filed: Jul. 27, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1359 MARTHA L. JACOBS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:06-cv-00599-TLW) Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 27, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martha L. Jacobs, Appellant Pro
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1359 MARTHA L. JACOBS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:06-cv-00599-TLW) Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 27, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martha L. Jacobs, Appellant Pro Se. John A. Nolet, Thomas J. Clark, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Martha L. Jacobs appeals from the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her complaint in which she requested that the district court enjoin the Internal Revenue Service from continuing its efforts to collect on a tax liability she disputes and from harassing her. She also sought monetary damages. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Jacobs v. IRS, No. 4:06-cv-00599-TLW (D.S.C. Mar. 21, 2007). 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