Dr. Brad Johnson v. Winford Barr , 514 F. App'x 343 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2353
DR. BRAD R. JOHNSON; ELCI WIJAYANINGSIH,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
WINFORD BARR; ABBY POPE; ELIZABETH BILETH; UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (7:11-cv-00104-BO)
Submitted: March 7, 2013 Decided: March 18, 2013
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brad R. Johnson, Elci Wijayaningsih, Appellants Pro Se. Robert
Joel Branman, I, Teresa E. McLaughlin, Tax Division, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brad R. Johnson and Elci Wijayaningsih appeal the
district court’s order granting the Government’s motion to be
substituted as a proper party and dismissing their complaint
filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed.
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The Appellants
brought suit against three employees of the Internal Revenue
Service in their individual capacities after they were audited.
This court reviews de novo a district court’s grant of
a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Columbia Gas Transmission
Corp. v. Drain, 237 F.3d 366, 369 (4th Cir. 2001). We may
affirm on alternate grounds if it is apparent from the record
that the Appellants are not entitled to relief. Ellis v.
Louisiana-Pacific Corp., 699 F.3d 778, 786 (4th Cir. 2012).
In Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Rossotti, 317 F.3d 401, 409 (4th Cir.
2003), this court noted that courts have consistently found that
taxpayers could not claim damages under Bivens against
individual IRS agents. See Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179,
1184-85 (9th Cir. 2004); Shreiber v. Mastrogiovanni, 214 F.3d
148, 152-53 (3d Cir. 2000); Dahn v. United States, 127 F.3d
1249, 1254 (10th Cir. 1997) (stating that “in light of the
comprehensive administrative scheme created by Congress to
resolve tax-related disputes, individual agents of the IRS are
2
also not subject to Bivens actions”); Fishburn v. Brown, 125
F.3d 979, 982–83 (6th Cir. 1997) (no Bivens action against IRS
agents for alleged due process violations during property
seizure); Vennes v. An Unknown Number of Unidentified Agents of
the United States, 26 F.3d 1448, 1454 (8th Cir. 1994) (declining
to create Bivens action against IRS agents for alleged due
process violations). There is no reason to stray from that rule
and on that basis we affirm the district court’s dismissal of
the Appellants’ Bivens claim.
For the reasons stated by the district court, the
Appellants were not eligible for injunctive relief or relief
under the Declaratory Judgment Act. See 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a)
(2006); 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) (2006).
Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3