Maxwell v. United States et al
| Charles Phillip Maxwell |
| United States, Internal Revenue Service and Earnest G. Shultz |
| 3:2009cv00940 |
| October 6, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Nashville Office |
| Davidson |
| Robert Echols |
| None |
| 26 U.S.C. ยง 7609 IRS: Petition to Quash IRS Summons |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
23
ORDER: The Court rules as follows: (1) The Government's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Petition to Quash or Stay Summons (Docket Entry No. 8) is hereby GRANTED; (2) Maxwell's Conditional Motion to Dismiss or Non-Suit Petition for Lack o f Jurisdiction (Docket Entry No. 19) is hereby DENIED AS MOOT; (3) Maxwell's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket Entry No. 4) and related Motion to Alter or Amend Court Order (Docket Entry No. 21) are hereby DENIED AS MOOT;(4) Maxwell's Motion For Judicial Notice And Show Cause Hearing As To Why Mark H. Wildasin Should Not Be Held In Contempt of Court (Docket Entry No. 15) is hereby DENIED; and (4) This action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in a separate document in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a).It is so ORDERED. Signed by Senior Judge Robert Echols on 7/31/10. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(af)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Tennessee Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
