Hughes v. Werfel

1
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
MICHAEL ALFONSO HUGHES,
Plaintiff,
v.
DANIEL WERFEL, in his official capacity as
Commissioner of the Internal Revenue
Service,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER ADOPTING [ECF NO. 19]
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Case No. 2:25-cv-00776
District Judge David Barlow
Before the court is United States Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead’s Report and
Recommendation1 to deny Plaintiff Michael Alfonso Hughes’ Motion for Preliminary
Injunction2 and Motion to Expedite Consideration of that motion.3
The parties were notified of their right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation within fourteen days of its service pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72.4 No party filed an objection.
1 R & R, ECF No. 19, filed October 19, 2025.
2 Mot. for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 5, filed September 6, 2025.
3 Mot. to Expediate Consideration of Mot. for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 14, filed September 20, 2025.
4 R & R, 5.
Case 2:25-cv-00776-DBB Document 20 Filed 11/17/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 2

2
This court “reviews unobjected-to portions of a report and recommendation for clear
error.”5 To overturn a decision as clearly erroneous, the court must be left with a “definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”6
Here, the analysis and conclusion of the Magistrate Judge are not clearly erroneous. Thus,
Judge Pead’s Report and Recommendation is adopted.
ORDER
The Report and Recommendation7 is ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction8 is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedited Consideration9 is DENIED as MOOT.
Signed November 14, 2025.
BY THE COURT
________________________________________
David Barlow
United States District Judge
5 Johnson v. Progressive Leasing, No. 2:22-cv-00052, 2023 WL 4044514, at *2 (D. Utah 2023) (citing Johnson v.
Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) adv. comm. note to 1983 amend.
(“[T]he court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.”).
6 United States v. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); see also Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d
1458, 1464 (10th Cir. 1988).
7 ECF No. 19.
8 ECF No. 5.
9 ECF No. 14.
Case 2:25-cv-00776-DBB Document 20 Filed 11/17/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 2