Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Buzzell v. Internal Revenue Service, 09-2257 (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-2257 Visitors: 14
Filed: Sep. 16, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2257 STEPHEN F. BUZZELL; KIMBERLY B. BUZZELL, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; ROB RICARDO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00161-RLW) Submitted: August 25, 2010 Decided: September 16, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2257 STEPHEN F. BUZZELL; KIMBERLY B. BUZZELL, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; ROB RICARDO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00161-RLW) Submitted: August 25, 2010 Decided: September 16, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen F. Buzzell, Kimberly B. Buzzell, Appellants Pro Se. Anne E. Blaess, Melissa Briggs, Robert William Metzler, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Robert P. McIntosh, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Stephen F. and Kimberly B. Buzzell appeal from the district court’s order dismissing their action against the Internal Revenue Service in which they sought a declaration that their rights were violated and sought to enjoin collection activities and the sale of their real property. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Buzzell v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 3:09-cv-00161-RLW (E.D. Va. Sept. 2, 2009). We deny the Buzzells’ “Motion for Relief in the alternative Motion for Summary Judgment.” 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