Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 DOREEN ANGELUCCI, Case No. 26-cv-00563-BAS-GC 16 Plaintiff, ORDER: 17 v. (1) APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND 18 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RECOMMENDATION IN ITS 19 Respondent. ENTIRETY (ECF No. 8); AND 20 (2) GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO SUMMARILY 21 DENY PETITION TO QUASH 22 AND ENFORCE IRS SUMMONS (ECF Nos. 1, 5) 23 24 For the reasons below, this Court ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R. (ECF 25 No. 8.) The Court DENIES Petitioner’s Petition to Quash IRS Summons. (ECF No. 1.) 26 Additionally, the Court GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Summarily Deny the Petition 27 to Quash and Enforce the IRS Summons. (ECF No. 5.) 28 I. BACKGROUND 1 On January 28, 2026, Doreen Angelucci (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to Quash 2 Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) Summons. (ECF No. 1.) On March 6, 2026, the United 3 States (“Respondent”) filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Summarily Deny Petition to 4 Quash and Enforce IRS Summons and a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support 5 of Its Motion. (ECF Nos. 5, 5-1.) On March 20, 2026, Petitioner filed a reply. (ECF No. 6 6.) On March 27, 2026, Respondent filed a Supplemental Document to United States’ 7 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Its Motion to Summarily Deny 8 Petition to Quash and Enforce IRS Summons. (ECF No. 7.) 9 On April 3, 2026, Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major issued a Report & 10 Recommendation (“R&R”) on Respondent’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Summarily 11 Deny Petition to Quash and Enforce IRS Summons and a Memorandum of Points and 12 Authorities in Support of Its Motion. (ECF No. 8.) On April 17, 2026, Petitioner filed an 13 Objection to the R&R. On April 29, 2026, Respondent filed a reply to Petitioner’s 14 Objection. (ECF No. 11.) 15 II. RESPONDENT’S OBJECTION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 16 (ECF No. 10) 17 District judges review de novo those portions of the R & R to which objections are 18 made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). They may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 19 the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. But “[t]he statute 20 makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 21 recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. 22 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also Schmidt v. 23 Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no 24 objections were filed, the district court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s 25 report). 26 Objections must be written and specific. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (“[A] 27 party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and 28 recommendations” of the magistrate judge. In the absence of specific objection, the clear 1 weight of authority indicates that the court need only satisfy itself that there is no “clear 2 error” on the face of the record before adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation. 3 See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Comm. Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. United 4 States Dist. Court, 501 F.3d 196 (9th Cir. 1974)). 5 Here, Petitioner objects to the R&R on two grounds. 6 First, Petitioner contends that IRS Revenue Officer Joseph A. Unger violated 26 7 U.S.C. § 6304(a)(2) by personally serving an attested copy of the summons by hand to 8 Angelucci and thus the United States failed to meet the administrative prong of the Powell 9 test. (ECF No. 10 at 4–6.) However, Petitioner’s objection faces the same flaws that the 10 R&R discussed in denying Petitioner’s motion to quash on the same grounds—that 11 “Petitioner has provided no case law or other legal authority supporting her argument that 12 a 26 U.S.C. § 6304(a)(2) violation negates the fourth requirement under Powell that the 13 IRS has adhered to the administrative procedures for issuing and serving the summons.” 14 (See ECF No. 8 at 9:5–13:15.) 15 Second, Petitioner asserts that Judge Major erred in determining that 26 U.S.C. § 16 7433 precludes denying the enforcement of the summons—reasoning that serving a 17 summons or talking to Angelucci during the summons constitutes a prohibited 18 “communication” within 26 U.S.C. § 6304(a)(2) and establishes a basis to deny 19 enforcement of summons. (See ECF No. 10 at 2, 3, 6–7.) However, for the reason 20 discussed in the R&R, even assuming that acts taking place during the service of a 21 summons constitute a “communication” within section 6304(a)(2), that does not preclude 22 the enforcement of the summons. (ECF No. 8 at 12:9–13:6 (“[E]ven if there was a 23 violation, and Petitioner has not established that there was, the violation could not be 24 remedied by denying the enforcement of an otherwise valid summons.”)). 25 IV. CONCLUSION 26 For the reasons above, this Court ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R. (ECF 27 No. 8.) The Court DENIES Petitioner’s Petition to Quash IRS Summons. (ECF No. 1.) 28 Additionally, the Court GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Summarily Deny the Petition 1 ||to Quash and Enforce the IRS Summons. (ECF No. 5.) The Clerk of Court is further 2 || DIRECTED TO CLOSE the case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ~ 5 || DATED: April 30, 2026 (yatta Baphar □□ 6 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A.