HENRY M. HERLONG, Jr., United States District Judge.
This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) and Local Rule 73.02 DSC. The magistrate judge recommends granting the defendant's motion to dismiss. Roger Orme: Davenport ("Davenport"), appearing pro se, filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. After a review of the facts of the case and Davenport's objections, the court grants the defendant's motion to dismiss.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which 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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1).
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This case stems from the Internal Revenue Service's ("IRS") seizure of Davenport's home for failure to pay federal income taxes. On September 13, 2000, a case involving the validity of the IRS's seizure of Davenport's home was removed to this court. See Audio Investments v. Robertson, CA No. 8:00-2847-20 (D.S.C. Sept. 13, 2000) ("Audio Investments"). Davenport was a third-party defendant in Audio Investments. The plaintiff in Audio Investments was a "pure trust organization" which Davenport asserted held title to his home and could contest the seizure made by the IRS. Robertson, the defendant in Audio Investments, purchased Davenport's home from the IRS at a tax sale. In addition to bringing a third-party claim against Davenport, Robertson also brought a third-party claim against the United States of America ("Government").
On April 19, 2002, the court granted the Govermnent's motion for summary judgment in Audio Investments. The court found that the "pure trust organization" was a sham used by Davenport in an attempt to avoid his federal tax liabilities. The court also found that the IRS properly seized Davenport's home and that the purchaser at the tax sale had title to the property.
On October 11, 2001, Davenport filed the instant action in state court. Davenport originally named the following as defendants: two federal tax liens; Paul H. O'Neill, the United States Secretary of the Treasury; Carol Blount; and William J. Johnson. On April 23, 2002, the magistrate judge granted the defendants' motion to substitute the United States as the defendant in this case.
Davenport also named the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina and a South Carolina Solicitor as plaintiffs, even though they have not joined this action. On January 28, 2002, the magistrate judge struck these "involuntary plaintiffs" from the docket.
In his complaint, Davenport alleges that the liens on his property were obtained fraudulently and seeks an order from the court cancelling these liens. Davenport also appears to seek damages against the defendants. On April 23, 2002, the magistrate judge issued his Report and Recommendation recommending that the defendant's motion to dismiss be granted. The magistrate judge took judicial notice of the court's findings in Audio Investments and based his recommendation on the court's determination in that case that the IRS properly seized Davenport's property. On May 17, 2002, Davenport filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Davenport filed amended objections on May 21, 2002.
II. DISCUSSION OF THE LAW
Davenport's case must be dismissed because the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity. "As sovereign, the United States enjoys immunity from suits for damages at common law." Perkins v. United States, 55 F.3d 910, 913 (4th Cir. 1995). By enacting the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), Congress chose to waive its sovereign immunity, but excepted certain spheres of the government's activity from this general waiver. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680. Among these exceptions from the waiver of sovereign immunity is an exception for "Any claim arising in respect of the assessment or collection of any tax." 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (c).
The exception contained in section 2680(c) encompasses "a broad scope of activities by IRS agents." Perkins, 55 F.3d at 913. "Whether a case falls within the [exception] is determined by whether a specific tax collection is at issue or whether the more general purposes of the agency are being pursued." Id. at 915. "In cases in which a specific tax debt of a specific taxpayer is at issue, the exception immunizes the IRS from suit for activities that are even remotely related to the tax assessment or collection." Id. In this case, Davenport's claims are directly related to the assessment and collection of his unpaid income taxes. Therefore, this case must be dismissed because the United States has not waived its immunity from suit for claims such as Davenport's. Even if the exception does not apply, Davenport has failed to show that he followed the procedural demands of the FTCA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). Additionally and alternatively, the court finds that Davenport's claims must be dismissed because of the reasons stated in Audio Investments.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that the Government's motion to dismiss is granted.