Albritton v. Premier Title, et al

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
July 9, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 03-30141
Summary Calendar
_____________________
TIMOTHY MICHAEL ALBRITTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant
versus
PREMIER TITLE; PATRICK KELLER; CATHERINE DURNIN;
UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE;
WALLACE B. SCHNEIDAU; JUDITH J. GOMEZ; EVELYN FADDIS,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No.: 02-CV-1070-B
_________________________________________________________________
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Timothy Michael Albritton, pro se, filed a complaint against
his sister, a title company and one of its employees, and the
Internal Revenue Service and three of its employees. Albritton’s
complaint alleges that he was a one-sixth owner of a parcel of real
estate located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He executed a power of
attorney that appointed Stephen Albritton or Catherine Albritton
Durnin as his agents, giving them the authority to sell his
interest in the parcel. After the agents found a buyer for the

-- 1 of 3 --

2
property, a title search revealed a federal tax lien and a judgment
lien. Albritton alleged that the net proceeds from the sale of the
parcel, after paying off a mortgage, the federal tax lien, the
judgment, and other costs, were $56,344.51. He alleged that the
other five co-owners received their share of $11,263.32, but he
received only a very small amount of money. Albritton alleged that
the defendants violated his federal constitutional rights and
Louisiana law.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s
recommendation, over Albritton’s objections, and dismissed
Albritton’s claims against the Internal Revenue Service and its
employees (Schneidau, Gomez, and Faddis) with prejudice, as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The court
held that Albritton’s complaint did not state a claim against the
IRS or its employees for a violation of his constitutional rights
or of other federal law. The court noted that federal law provides
a taxpayer with remedies to challenge an alleged improper
assessment and collection of federal taxes, but those remedies do
not include an after-the-fact lawsuit against the IRS and its
employees for collecting on a lien, based on the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, the Consumer Credit Protection Act, and
the Freedom of Information Act. The district court declined to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Albritton’s state law

-- 2 of 3 --

3
claims against Premier Title, Patrick Keller, and Catherine Durnin,
and dismissed those claims without prejudice.
Based on our review of the record and our liberal construction
of Albritton’s brief, we conclude that the district court did not
err by dismissing Albritton’s complaint, essentially for the
reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s recommendation, adopted by
the district court.
A F F I R M E D.

-- 3 of 3 --