David v. United States
District Court, D. Massachusetts
1Opinion of the Court
PONSOR, District Judge.
Upon de novo review this Report and Recommendation are hereby adopted. Defendant’s motion (Dkt. No. 8) is hereby ALLOWED, and plaintiffs motion (Diet. No. 11) is DENIED. Plaintiffs suit cannot survive the letter and spirit of Brockamp.
So Ordered.
The elerk is hereby ordered to enter judgment for the defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Docket Nos. 8 and 11)
NEIMAN, United States Magistrate Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff George David (“Plaintiff’) claims that Defendant, the Internal Revenue Service of the United States of…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Thomas v. ArnSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Samuel Mesnick v. General Electric CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1991
- United States v. Emiliano Valencia-CopeteCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1986
- Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1980
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.