Opinion
Civil Action No. 99-D-2196
February 27, 2002
ORDER
The United States has filed this action to reduce federal tax assessments made against Edward Novotny for the 1989, 1990 and 1991 tax years and to foreclose its tax liens based upon the assessments against seven parcels of real property.
On January 16, 2002, Mr. Novotny filed a document entitled" Constructive Notice and for the Record Novotny Objects to this Court Setting a New Pretrial Conference and Trial Date After Being Prejudiced and Denied Due Process of Law by this Court, its Magistrate/Officers/Secretary/Plaintiff, Employee."
Mr. Novotny objects to the District Judge's setting of the final trial preparation conference and the trial date. The court notes that the Final Pretrial Order was entered on July 3, 2001 and that there are no other settings before the Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge does not have the authority to vacate Judge Daniel's Trial Preparation Conference and Trial Dates.
"Issues I and II": To the extent that Mr. Novotny is attempting to reargue or reassert his motions to compel, the motions are untimely and are therefore denied.
"Issues III, IV and IX": These allegations appear to be Mr. Novotny's Motions to strike certain of plaintiffs documents or trial exhibits, including Certificates of Asessmement, and other documents which Mr. Novotny objects to as "self serving." These objections, to the extent they appear to be objections to trial exhibits, are for the trial judge to decide.
"Issue V": Mr. Novotny objects for the record because he has been sending documents to the Us Attorney Strickland, although that office is now occupied by U.S. Attorney John Suthers. This issue is moot due to the court's previous order requiring the assistant United States attorneys to use the name of the current U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado for the pleading's signature block, and therefore denied.
"Issue VI": This appears to be Mr. Novotny's claim that he has been denied due process of law because there is not evidence of a "signed contract! privilege establishing some form of consideration granted by the government." This argument is nonsensical and to the extent that Mr. Novotny claims any relief it is denied.
"Issue VII": Mr. Novotny objects to the court's order of September 17, 2001. Under Rule 72, any objections to the orders of a magistrate judge are to be filed no later than ten days after service of the order. See Rule 72(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. Therefore, this objection is untimely and is denied.
"Issue VIII": In this objection, Mr. Novotny appears to claim that the IRS agents have failed to abide by the Internal Revenue Code. The court assumes that this "issue" is Mr. Novotny's motion to amend his answer or to file counterclaims, which is denied as moot since the time period for joinder and amendment is long past.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, Mr. Novotny's "Constructive Notice and for the Record Novotny Objects to this Court Setting a New Pretrial Conference and Trial Date After Being Prejudiced and Denied Due Process of Law by this Court, its Magistrate/Officers/Secretary/Plaintiff Employee" filed January 16, 2002 is denied.