Filed: Feb. 04, 2009
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 4, 2009 No. 08-30667 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk TOMMY K. CRYER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas No. 5:07-CV-2206 Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Tommy Cryer sued the government, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7431,
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 4, 2009 No. 08-30667 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk TOMMY K. CRYER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas No. 5:07-CV-2206 Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Tommy Cryer sued the government, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7431, f..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 4, 2009
No. 08-30667
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
TOMMY K. CRYER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
No. 5:07-CV-2206
Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tommy Cryer sued the government, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7431, for al-
leged wrongful disclosures of tax return information in violation of
id. § 6103.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 08-30667
The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim, mainly on the ground that the information allegedly disclosed is not “re-
turn information” as intended by the statute.
The district court explained its reasons in a careful “Memorandum Ruling”
entered on May 13, 2008. We agree with the analysis in that opinion. The judg-
ment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district court.
2