Schiff v. Internal Revenue Services

• Court: District Court, D. Puerto Rico
• Decided: June 23, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-01511
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

PETER DAVID SCHIFF,

Plaintiff,

CIVIL NO. 24-1511 (CVR) v.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Several “Motions to Dismiss” were filed by some of the Defendants in this case, to wit, the Commissioner of Financial Institutions of Puerto Rico (“OCIF”) and its Commissioner, Natalia Zequeira Díaz (Docket No. 31); OCIF’s Trustee Wigberto Lugo- Mender (Docket No. 32); The New York Times and reporter Matthew Goldstein (Docket No. 58); the United States of America, the Internal Revenue Services (“IRS”) and IRS’ former employee Jim Lee (Docket No. 81); and The Age newspaper and journalists Charlotte Grieve and Nick McKenzie (Docket No. 95). On March 13, 2025, this case was referred to Magistrate Judge Marcos E. López (“Magistrate Judge López”) for reports and recommendations on dispositive motions, among others. (Docket No. 66). After the Motions to Dismiss above mentioned were referred to Magistrate Judge López, Plaintiff sought and was granted leave to file an Amended Complaint. (Docket Nos. 118 and 121). Consequently, Magistrate Judge López recommended that the pending Motions to Dismiss be denied without prejudice. (Docket No. 124). Peter David Schiff v. Internal Revenue Service, et al. Order Adopting Report and Recommendation Civil No. 24-1511 (CVR) Page 2

A district court may refer a pending motion to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Loc. R. 72. Any party adversely affected by the report and recommendation may file written objections within fourteen (14) days of being served with the magistrate judge’s report. Loc. R. 72(d); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who files a timely objection is entitled to a de novo determination of the portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which specific objections are made. Ramos-Echevarría v. Pichis, Inc., 698 F.Supp.2d 262, 264 (D.P.R. 2010); Lewry v. Town of Standish, 984 F.2d 25 (1st Cir. 1993); United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4 (1st Cir. 1986). The deadline for the parties to object to the findings made by Magistrate Judge López expired on June 20, 2025, and no objections were filed. After reviewing the Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 124), the Court finds it to be well-reasoned, and hereby adopts it in toto. Accordingly, the Motions to Dismiss at Docket Nos. 31, 32, 58, 81 and 95 are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 23rd day of June of 2025. s/ CAMILLE L. VELEZ-RIVE CAMILLE L. VELEZ-RIVE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE