United States v. Wilkinson

Opinion

INT HEU NITSETDA TDEISS TRCIOCUTR T TFHOER EASTEDRINS TROIFCV TI RGINIA AlexaDnidvriisai on UNITESDT ATOEFSA MERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) V. ) CivAicltN ioo1.:n 2 2-c(vP-T1GA2/)0J 7F ) JAICM.EW ILKINSON, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ORDER This matctmoeerbs e fotrhCeeo uonrt thA eugu s1t8 2 ,203Pr opoFsienddo i Ffncagatns d Recommend(aR"t&i"Ro fr)onms M aigstJruadtgeneF . A nJdoeh rresgoanr PdlniafftnisigM otion for DefauJlutd gamgaeinnDtsefe tn d paunrtstuFoae ndt Reu rloaeCfl i vPireloud cr55e( b) ((D2k)t. 22D)k.2t 5. J.u dge Andeon rasvdistehpdeat ritehsoab jte cttitoho eR&nRsm ust b efilweidt hin fourteen (14)e daanyds faoifl usreer vtioc ob jIed.atc 1 t1 .w aives ap Wherne viaem wagiitnsatrgje u gdeR'&sR t,hC eo umrustmt a kade e novdoe term inatio of thopsrotieo onfts h Re&Rt ow hhio cbjecitafin oaynr,mse a, d eFe..dR .CiPv .7.2 ;( 2b8) U.S§.6 C3.6 (b)T(hlCe)o (uisCr au)tt. h ortiaozc ecd ree pjcteto,,rm odi ifywn,h ol oerin p at,r three commnesmn addabetyt i homea gisjturdagIted."e. [ O]bjmeuct sbtesi poencsai nfidc particuarilzed ino rdtedoire cr tt haet teonftt hdieitor snic cortt ut o'ontlhyo isssuete hsrea mta in i dnispafuttteeh mr ea isgtrea jtudhagsme ad e findinagdn rse commioennsdU.an"titd'e Stva.t es KotzNeov1.1,: 8 -cv2-01024W 0L19 2,1 71a5t*3 3(,E .VDaM..a r1.12 ,20 )0( quo Utniintged Statv eM.isd ge4t7t 8Fe., 63 1d66,2(14 Ctih2r0 .70 )). OnS eptem6,b2 e0r2D 3e,fe ndfialneaLt de tttote hrCe o tu(D rkt.2 7.)I nthLaettet r, Defendcahnatl ltehUneng eide Stdt aatnetdsh C 'eo urattuh'osro ivtheiyrm a n;d in,w haaptpa res to be a response to Judge Anderson’s R&R, referred to the default judgment as “biased[,]” asked the Court to reevaluate it, and demanded a number of IRS Tax Forms and tax identification numbers. See Dkt. 27 at 1-3, 6-7. Since federal courts are to construe the claims of pro se litigants liberally, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), the Court will construe Defendant’s Letter as an objection to Judge Anderson’s R&R. The claims raised in Defendant’s Letter do not, however, satisfy the specificity requirement of objections. Abou-Hussein v. Mabus, D.S.C. No. 2:09-1988, 2010 WL 4340935, at *1 (D.S.C. Oct. 28, 2010), affd, 414 Fed. Appx. 518 (4th Cir. 2011), Even if they did, the Court finds that the claims lack merit. First, in a March 31, 2023 Order, this Court addressed and rejected Defendant’s arguments that there is no authority under which Defendant can be sued, explaining that under relevant federal law, counsel for the United States may prosecute civil actions or proceedings in which the United States is concerned against natural persons such as Defendant. See Dkt. 13 at 2-3. In that same Order, the Court directed Defendant to file an answer to Plaintiff's Complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Order. /d at 3. Filing an answer would have afforded Defendant the opportunity to raise any defenses to Plaintiff's claims and seek, by means of discovery, the type of documents Defendant now demands. Yet, Defendant failed to file an answer or any other responsive pleading. The record also shows that Defendant has had other opportunities to challenge Plaintiff's claims against him, but that he failed to make use of those opportunities. The Complaint alleges that on August 23, 2018, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) served a summons on Defendant requiring him to appear on October 11, 2018 and produce the foreign account records for his Clarien Bank account in Bermuda for the calendar years 2014 to 2017. See Compl. 417. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant never appeared in response to the summons. /d. Defendant does

notd itse tpishua llegat iEovnea.nft Pealri n tiinffidtth iifeasdt eelraawsilu,tD efendmaadnent o attteopm ropptrely r espoortn aeadk ct i iotnnh cisas eT .hii essiv dnecnetod o n blyDy efendant's decinostti fiool nane an swedrepi,st ace ou rotr dtedoro s o b,uatl bs yhoi fasiltoua prpee aattrh e heariPlnagi nfotMrio ftfifosro D ne fauJdlugtm esne Dtek,2t 5.a 2t. Denfedacnatn nnowo, att thee levheuorn,att ht etmocp hta lPlaleinngtceil fa fbisyrm sasniiga rgu mteh anarttewsi thout

merit. Th eCouhar srte viethw eRe&dR th,ep artsuibemsi's asndit hoern esc,hoerred iA nfr. te revitehe wrienc agno drth deo bjioencts ttoh eR&Ra,nh da vgmi anddeen o vdoetermwiintaht ions respteehrcettt eh oC,ou rhte reObVyE RRULEDSe fendObajnietoc'n(tssD k2t7.a) n d APPROVEanSd A DOPTINS F ULLt hfiend ignsJ udAgneed rsseot fonr tihnt hRe& R( k0t. 2)5A.c cordingly, it is ORDERtEhatD P laintMioftffoirso D ne ufal Jtudg(mDekn2tt2i. )Gs R ANTEandDi ;t isfu rther ORDEREthDat d efauljtu dgmbeeEnN tT EREiDnfa vr oofP laianndta igffa inst Defendia ntnhatme o uonft$ 80,a0l0ow0ni,gpt rh-e judgimnetneptru ersstotu3 a1Un .tS §. C.

3177(pao)s,t -jiundtgepmrueernsstttu o2a8 nU t. S§.1 C9.6 la(nald)a ,t e-ppaeynmaelntti es purstu3oa 1 Un.St. §C3 .7 17an(die its)fu ;r ther ORDEREtDh Daetfe ndaMnott'itosoD ni saqlui(fyD k1t4,.N) otoifcD eem andt o DimsisfosrW ant ofJr uisdiio cnantdA utho(rDikt1ty8R. )e ,d e mfoarthn edD isqualoiffi cati thJeu dangdeA tto(rnkDe ty1.s9 a )n,Ndo teio cfD emnadt oC eaansd eDe siansdtR epsontsoe ResptooNn osteti oDcies mfoirWs asn ot fJ urisadniAdcu ttoihroiantn Ryde demfoarthn ed Disquan l[iotfif]hcJ eau tdaigdn oAet to(rDnk.e2t y1 ars)De E NIED.

3 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff as set forth above, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2023 J ay /s/ . Alexandria, VA Patricia Tolliver Giles United States District Judge