Green v. Internal Revenue Service

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: April 23, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-02469
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Nathaniel Harold Green, Case No. 2:20-cv-2469-TLW PLAINTIFF v. OOrder Internal Revenue Service, William P. Barr, Sherri A. Lydon, DEFENDANTS Plaintiff Nathaniel Harold Green, proceeding pro se and , filed this civil action seeking 12 billion dollars in damages for reasons that are unclear. ECF No. 1. The matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) filed by the magistrate judge to whom this case was assigned. ECF No. 15. In the Report, the magistrate judge recommends that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed because it is barred by res judicata in light of this Court’s prior dismissal

of a similar case of his.1 He did not file objections to the Report. This matter is now ripe for decision. The Court is charged with conducting a review of any portion of the Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636.

1 , No. 2:19-cv-03253-TLW, 2020 WL 2839183 (D.S.C. June 1, 2020), , No. 20-1723 (4th Cir. July 6, 2020). In the absence of objections to the Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. , 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, “a district court need not conduct a review,

but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’” , 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). As noted above, the Report recommends dismissal of this case due to the application of res judicata. However, the prior case was dismissed without prejudice, , 2020 WL 2839183, at *2, and “dismissal without prejudice is a dismissal that

does not operate as an adjudication upon the merits and thus does not have a res judicata effect,” , 496 U.S. 384, 396 (1990) (cleaned up). But while the Court cannot conclude that this case is barred by res judicata, it is subject to dismissal because it is nonsensical. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(ii) (“[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . is frivolous or . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be

granted . . . .”); , 879 F.2d 292, 295 (7th Cir. 1989) (“When issues patently lack merit, the reviewing court is not obliged to devote scarce judicial resources to a written discussion of them.”). Because the Court agrees with the Report’s conclusion that this case should be dismissed, the Report, ECF No. 15, is AACCEPTED. This action is hereby DDISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IIT IS SO ORDERED.

Terry L. Wooten Senior United States District Judge April 22, 2021 Columbia, South Carolina