# United States v. Kistler

> District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · June 23, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10413334

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 23, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10413334

## Opinion text

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :
: CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21-CV-1283
Plaintiff, : (JUDGE MARIANI)
: (Magistrate Judge Carlson)
V. :
JOHN MICHAEL KISTLER, JR., :
Defendant.
/ ORDER
nt iow of Magi
AND NOW, THIS.2 AY OF JUNE 2023, upon review of Magistrate Judge
Martin C. Carlson's Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 76) and all relevant
documents for clear error or manifest injustice,’ IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1 The Court concludes that de novo review is not warranted in the circumstances presented here. If
a party timely and properly files a written objection to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation,
the District Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(3); M.D. Pa. Local Rule 72.3; Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011). “Ifa party does
not object timely to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the party may lose its right to de novo
review by the district court.” EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99-100 (3d Cir. 2017). The de
novo standard applies only to objections which are specific. Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6-7 (3d Cir. 1984).
Following issuance of the R&R on July 12, 2022, Defendant filed a three-part document (Docs. 78, 78-1,
78-2) on July 28, 2022, which he docketed as a motion. Document 78 is titled “Petitioner's Motion
Statement in Support of Remand to US Tax Court Basis is Jurisdiction and Venue are Improper.”
Document 78-1 is titled “Petitioner Notice in Opposition to Summary Judgment and Notice of Appeal to
United States Tax Court.” Document 78-2 is titled “Summary Statement in Support of Opposition to US
Atty. Carroll's Motion for Summary Judgment Proof of Claim by the Secretary Demanded.” Only the
second of these contains any reference to the R&R or Magistrate Judge Carlson: in five of the sixty-one
paragraphs in the document, Plaintiff lodges complaints against Magistrate Judge Carlson but does not
specifically reference the R&R. (See Doc. 78-1 Ff] 2, 3, 4, 9, 14.) To the extent the Court considers
“Petitioner Notice in Opposition to Summary Judgment and Notice of Appeal to United States Tax Court” to
be objections to the R&R, the document was not timely filed in that the R&R was served on Defendant via
electronic filing on July 12, 2022, and the last day for filing objections was July 26, 2022—two days before
Defendant filed the document at issue. (See Doc. 76 at 15; see also Doc. 76 Notice of Electronic Filing.)
Further, if the document had been timely filed, Defendant's allegations lack the specificity required by
Goney. Therefore, Defendant is not entitled to de novo review of any portion of the R&R.

1. The R&R (Doc. 76) is ADOPTED for the reasons set forth therein.
2. United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 52) is GRANTED.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of the United States and
against Defendant in the amount of $81,858 plus amounts accruing since June 6,
2022.2
4. “Petitioner's Conditional Offer of Acceptance Offer in Compromise With the Alleged
Plaintiff With All 3 Party Defendants as Follows” (Doc. 74) is DENIED.
5. Defendant's “Summary Statement in Support for Remand to US Tax Court Basis is
Jurisdiction and Venue are Improper” (Doc. 68) is DENIED.
6. “Petitioner's Motion Statement in Support of Remand to US Tax Court Basis is
Jurisdiction and Venue are Improper” (Doc. 78) is DENIED.‘

\ oe ) e
Lt? WUgntay
Robert D. Mariani
United States District Judge

2 In its Complaint filed on July 21, 2021, the United States sought judgment in its favor “for income
tax liabilities, penalties and interest in the amount of $79,620 as of July 26, 2021, together with interest and
penalties that will continue to accrue after that date according to law.” (Doc. 1 at 2.) In its brief in support
of summary judgment filed on May 31, 2022, the United States asserts that Defendant “is indebted to the
United States for unpaid federal income taxes, penalties, and interest in the amount of $81,858 as of June
6, 2022, plus statutory additions that have accrued and will continue to accrue according to law.” (Doc. 52-
1 at 5.)
3 Defendant docketed this document as a motion.
4 This motion was filed after the issuance of the R&R but seeks the same relief as that sought in
Document 68 which Magistrate Judge Carlson addressed in the R&R and recommended that the Court
deny the request for remand (see Doc. 76 at 13-14.) The Court denies the “Motion Statement in Support of
Remand to US Tax Court Basis is Jurisdiction and Venue are Improper” (Doc. 78) for the same reasons set
forth in the R&R (Doc. 76 at 13-14).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10413334. Public record. Not legal advice.