Michael Alfonso Hughes v. Daniel Werfel, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service

Opinion

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH

MICHAEL ALFONSO HUGHES, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING [ECF NO. 19] Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

v. Case No. 2:25-cv-00776

DANIEL WERFEL, in his official capacity as District Judge David Barlow Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service,

Defendants.

Before the court is United States Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead’s Report and Recommendation1 to deny Plaintiff Michael Alfonso Hughes’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction2 and Motion to Expedite Consideration of that motion.3 The parties were notified of their right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of its service pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72.4 No party filed an objection.

1 R & R, ECF No. 19, filed October 19, 2025. 2 Mot. for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 5, filed September 6, 2025. 3 Mot. to Expediate Consideration of Mot. for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 14, filed September 20, 2025. 4 R & R, 5. 1 This court “reviews unobjected-to portions of a report and recommendation for clear error.”° To overturn a decision as clearly erroneous, the court must be left with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’””® Here, the analysis and conclusion of the Magistrate Judge are not clearly erroneous. Thus, Judge Pead’s Report and Recommendation is adopted. ORDER The Report and Recommendation’ is ADOPTED. Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction® is DENIED. Plaintiffs Motion to Expedited Consideration? is DENIED as MOOT.

Signed November 14, 2025. BY THE COURT

David Barlow United States District Judge

> Johnson v. Progressive Leasing, No. 2:22-cv-00052, 2023 WL 4044514, at *2 (D. Utah 2023) (citing Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) adv. comm. note to 1983 amend. (“[T]he court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). ® United States v. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); see also Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1464 (10th Cir. 1988). TECF No. 19. 8 ECF No. 5. ° ECF No. 14.