Sheryll Ann Dillon d/b/a iTax Self Help Financial LLC on behalf of its clients, joining a nationwide class of similarly situated taxpayers v. Internal Revenue Service, Commissioner of the IRS, and U.S. Government

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

SHERYLL ANN DILLON d/b/a iTax § Self Help Financial LLC on behalf of its § clients, joining a nationwide class of § similarly situated taxpayers, § Plaintiff, § § NO. 1:26-CV-1206-ADA-ML v. § § INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, § COMMISSIONER OF THE IRS, and § U.S. GOVERNMENT, § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mark Lane filed on July 23, 2026. Dkt. No. 7. The report analyzes the merits of Plaintiff’s claims and recommends that the undersigned DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s causes of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), DISMISS AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite Consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. No. 4), and DISMISS Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify Class (Dkt. No. 5). This Court hereby adopts Judge Lane’s Recommendations. A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation, thereby securing de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). A district court need not consider “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United States Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)). Plaintiff filed objections on August 8, 2026. Dkt. No. 8. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Complaint, the Report and Recommendation, the objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the applicable laws. After that thorough review, the Court is persuaded that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation should be adopted. The Court finds that Judge Lane properly assessed associational standing under Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977) and properly concluded that Plaintiff has not demonstrated associational standing for 1Tax to bring these claims and cannot proceed herself pro se on behalf of a proposed class action or on behalf of a corporation. The Court therefore overrules Plaintiff's objections to Judge Lane’s report. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mark Lane, Dkt. No. 7, is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Final judgment will issue separately. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite Consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. No. 4) is DISMISSED AS MOOT. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class (Dkt. No. 5) is DISMISSED.

SIGNED on August 12, 2026.

Q\eo Ls ALAN D ALBRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE