United States v. Blackston

CourtDistrict Court, D. South Carolina
DecidedJanuary 19, 2022
Docket6:20-cv-04023
StatusUnknown

This text of United States v. Blackston (United States v. Blackston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Blackston, (D.S.C. 2022).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION

United States of America, ) Case No. 6:20-cv-04023-DCC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Maree Blackston; Barry C. Blackston; ) Barry C. Blackston d/b/a Greenville ) Internal Medicine; GIM Barry ) Blackston, MD, PA; Greenville County ) Office of the Tax Collector; SC ) Department of Employment and ) Workforce; Cryptomaria, LLC, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ )

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 53. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin for pre- trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On October 13, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion be construed as a Motion for Default Judgment against Cryptomaria, LLC (“Cryptomaria”) and GIM Barry Blackston, MD, PA (“GIM”) and for Summary Judgment against the remaining Defendants, that the Motion be granted, that the unpaid federal tax liabilities of Barry C. Blackston d/b/a Greenville Internal Medicine (“Greenville Internal Medicine”) and Maree Blackston (“Maree”) be reduced to judgment, that a permanent injunction be entered against Barry C. Blackston (“Barry”) and GIM barring them from failing to file and pay employment and unemployment taxes, and that the Court declare that Plaintiff’s liens are enforceable and that proceeds from any sale of the Subject Property1 shall be distributed according to the stipulated priority. ECF No. 83. The Magistrate Judge advised the

parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. No party has filed objections, and the time to do so has lapsed. APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or

recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo 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.” (citation omitted)).

1 The Subject Property is described in the Report, ECF No. 83 at 4 n.4, and that description is incorporated into this Order. The Report contains a more thorough recitation of facts, which the Court incorporates by reference. Briefly, Plaintiff seeks relief relating to failures of certain Defendants to meet their federal tax obligations. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff filed the instant

action against Maree and Barry (collectively, “the Blackstons”), Greenville Internal Medicine, GIM, the Greenville County Office of the Tax Collector (“GCOTC”), the South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce (“SCDEW”), and Cryptomaria.2 Id. In Count One, Plaintiff seeks a monetary judgment against Greenville Internal Medicine for its outstanding federal employment taxes, together with penalties and interest. Id. ¶¶

24–28. In Count Two, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against Barry and GIM. Id. ¶¶ 29– 42. In Count Three, Plaintiff requests a monetary judgment against Maree for her outstanding tax liability, including assessed and accrued late-filing and failure-to-pay penalties under 26 U.S.C. § 6651, costs, and statutory interest, after applying any abatements, payments, and credits. Id. ¶¶ 43–50. Finally, in Count Four, Plaintiff

requests a declaratory judgment that would confirm the validity of a federal tax lien and its enforceability against the Subject Property. Id. ¶¶ 51–55.

2 GCOTC is a department of the County of Greenville, South Carolina, and is named as a Defendant on the basis that it may claim an interest in the real property at issue by virtue of outstanding real property taxes owed by the Blackstons for 2017. ECF No. 1 at 4 ¶ 13. SCDEW is a department of the State of South Carolina and is named as a Defendant on the basis that it may claim an interest in the real property at issue by virtue of judgments obtained from the Greenville County 13th Circuit Court in Case Numbers 2015CP2303633,2017CP2307496, and 2018CP2301697. Id. ¶ 14. Cryptomaria is a South Carolina corporation named as a Defendant on the basis that it may claim an interest in the real property by virtue of a judgment obtained from the Greenville County 13th Circuit Court in Case Number 2015CP2306694. Id. ¶ 15. The Blackstons filed an Answer on February 2, 2021. ECF No. 20. On March 9, 2021, the Clerk entered default against GIM. ECF No. 33. Accordingly, the facts alleged in the Complaint are deemed admitted as against GIM. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6). On

May 11, 2021, the United States served its First Set of Request for Admissions to the Blackstons. ECF No. 53-2 at 3–6, 8–11. Because neither of the Blackstons responded to the requests within 30 days of service, ECF No. 53-2 at 1–2, the facts in the requests are deemed admitted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). The facts in the request served on Barry are also deemed admitted as to Greenville Internal Medicine. See, e.g., Auto-Owners Ins.

Co. v. Rhodes, 748 S.E.2d 781, 789 (S.C. 2013) (“The fact that [the insured] operated his business under another name did not create a separate legal entity for insurance purposes.”). Count One As explained in more detail by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff has provided Forms

4340, otherwise known as a “Certificate of Assessments, Payments and Other Specified Matters,” demonstrating that the relevant assessments were made and they remain unpaid. ECF Nos. 53, 83. Here, the record reflects that a delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury assessed federal employment and unemployment tax liabilities against Barry. Forms 4340 can be rebutted only by a showing that the assessments are arbitrary

and without foundation. United States v. Grant, No. 1:12-cv-00042-JMC, 2013 WL 3229684, at *2 (D.S.C. June 25, 2013). Because Barry has not forecasted evidence to make that showing, there are no genuine disputes of material fact. Accordingly, summary judgment is granted against Greenville Internal Medicine as to Count One and Plaintiff is awarded judgment in the amount of $1,210,339.23 as of July 8, 2021, plus interest and statutory additions that accrue afterwards. ECF Nos. 53-3 ¶ 12; id. at 9.

Count Two Count Two pertains to injunctive relief.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mathews v. Weber
423 U.S. 261 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Legend Night Club v. Miller
637 F.3d 291 (Fourth Circuit, 2011)
Auto-Owners Insurance v. Rhodes
748 S.E.2d 781 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Blackston, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-blackston-scd-2022.