Opinion
Case No. C-1-02-243
June 9, 2003
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Extend Time to File Motions for Discovery (Doc. 38). This Motion was filed on February, 2003 and is uncontested. However, the Motion requests an extension of time until March 28, 2003. In July, 2002, this Court prepared and placed of record a Calendar Order providing for a discovery deadline of February 28, 2003. Neither party requested any modification of the Calendar Order. Defendant's Motion, filed on the last day for providing, not seeking, discovery was necessitated by a governmental request to stipulate to a permanent injunction. The Court does not see this governmental request to trigger the need for further discovery. Defendant's Motion is untimely and is hereby denied. The Motion is also moot, since March 23, 2003 has passed.
Also before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Extend Time to File Motions for Discovery until April 28, 2003. This time, Plaintiff asserts that the reason for the extension is the fact that "voluminous" discovery was provided by Defendant. The inference to be taken from the last sentence is that Defendant needs time to wade though all the documents provided by the Government and see if what he wants discovery about had been provided. The Government does not contest the Motion. Because April 28, 2003 has passed, however, the Motion is moot and hereby denied.
The last motion presently before the Court is the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment, the purpose for which is to permanently enjoin Defendant from the preparation of any federal income tax returns (Doc. 39). Defendant responded to Judge Dlott's Show Cause Order (Doc. 41) asserting that the "facts are in dispute" and that the Magistrate Judge's findings were "factually incorrect." Defendant failed to explain why he believes either to be the case. The Government argues that "no triable issues of fact are involved" and that United States v. McGuire, 714 F.2d 607 (6th Cir. 1983) provided sufficient authority for the Court to convert the preliminary injunction to a permanent injunction when no triable issues of fact are involved and the question before the Court is a legal one. This Court finds that there are no triable issues of fact and that the issues before the Court are legal ones. It is therefore recommended that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment be granted.
NOTICE
Attached hereto is the Report and Recommended decision of the Honorable Timothy S. Hogan, United States Magistrate Judge, which was filed on Any party may object to the Magistrate's findings, recommendations, and report within (10) days after being served with a copy thereof or further appeal is waived. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Such parties shall file with the Clerk of Court, and serve on all Parties, the Judge, and the Magistrate, a written Motion to Review which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which objection is made along with a memorandum of law setting forth the basis for such objection, (such parties shall file with the Clerk a transcript of the specific portions of any evidentiary proceedings to which an objection is made).
In the event a party files a Motion to Review the Magistrate's Findings, Recommendations and Report, all other parties shall respond to said Motion to Review within ten (10) days after being served a copy thereof.