Order — United States v. Audris E. Clark and Dean M. Clark (Dkt. 16, August 7, 2023)

Summary

An order in United States of America v. Audris E. Clark and Dean M. Clark d/b/a DMC Surveyors, Case No. 22-cv-298-LM, Document 16, filed 08/07/23, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Chief Judge Landya B. McCafferty states that no objection having been filed, the order approves the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone dated June 28, 2023. The order grants the government's motion for default judgment (Doc. No. 10) as to all claims (Counts I, II, and III). Judgment is entered in the amounts of $92,361.39 as to the Clarks for income tax liabilities, $38,004.67 as to Dean Clark for employment tax liabilities, and $13,894.51 as to Dean Clark for unemployment tax liabilities.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

       Case 1:22-cv-00298-LM Document 16 Filed 08/07/23 Page 1 of 2



                       UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE


United States of America

     v.
                                                  Case No. 22-cv-298-LM
Audris E. Clark and Dean M. Clark
d/b/a DMC Surveyors

                                    ORDER

     No objection having been filed, I herewith approve the Report and

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone dated June 28,

2023. For the reasons explained therein, the government’s motion for

default judgment (Doc. No. 10) as to all claims (Counts I, II, and

III) is granted. Judgment is entered in the amounts of $92,361.39 as

to the Clarks for income tax liabilities, $38,004.67 as to Dean Clark

for employment tax liabilities, and $13,894.51 as to Dean Clark for

unemployment tax liabilities.

     “‘[O]nly those issues fairly raised by the objections to the

magistrate's report are subject to review in the district court and

those not preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.’”

School Union No. 37 v. United Nat'l Ins. Co., 617 F.3d 554, 564 (1st

Cir. 2010) (quoting Keating v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 848

F.2d 271, 275 (1st Cir.1988)); see also United States v. Valencia-

Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986) (after proper notice, failure to

file a specific objection to magistrate's report will waive the right

to appeal).

                                            /s/ Landya B. McCafferty
                                            Landya B. McCafferty
                                            Chief Judge

Date: August 7, 2023
       Case 1:22-cv-00298-LM Document 16 Filed 08/07/23 Page 2 of 2




cc:   Counsel of Record


File and source

File

16.pdf

Size

75,030 bytes

SHA-256

011bcb1485fc8844b89481f5f3f18d5f4a24c5e93da903902240f8a00b0e3032

Our copy

16.pdf

Original

archive.org