Schiff v. Internal Revenue Services et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
PETER DAVID SCHIFF,
Plaintiff,
v.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL NO. 24-1511 (CVR)
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
On November 4, 2024, Plaintiff Peter David Schiff (“Plaintiff”) filed the present
case alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (3), and under Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) against
several Defendants, among them Jim Lee (“Lee”) in his individual and official capacity as
former Chief of Criminal Investigations for the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). 	On
March 13, 2025, the undersigned referred this case to a Magistrate Judge for full pre-trial
management, including ruling on non-dispositive motions and issuing reports and
recommendations for dispositive motions. (Docket No. 66).
On January 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to complete
service of process on multiple defendants in this case which the Court granted in part.
(Docket Nos. 29 and 30). On March 31, 2025, Plaintiff filed a second motion requesting
an additional extension until May 30, 2025, to serve Lee in his personal capacity, which
the Court denied. In so doing, the Court found Plaintiff had sufficient time to complete
Case 3:24-cv-01511-CVR Document 242 Filed 01/22/26 Page 1 of 4

Peter David Schiff v. Internal Revenue Service, et al.
Opinion and Order
Civil 24-1511 (CVR)
Page 2
_______________________________
service of process 1, had not articulated any efforts undertaken to serve Lee during that
time, and particularly because Lee was in the United States. (Docket Nos. 77 and 79). The
Court also ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed
against Lee, in his personal capacity, for failure to complete service of process in a timely
manner. 	(Id.). 	Plaintiff filed a motion in compliance therewith and at the same time,
requested leave of Court to serve by publication under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4(e)(1) and Puerto Rico Rule of Civil Procedure 4.6. (Docket No. 83). On May 20, 2025,
Plaintiff filed a second motion requesting leave to serve Lee by publication, which the
Court also denied. (Docket Nos. 101 and 114).
Magistrate Judge Marcos E. López then issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) recommending that the case be dismissed against Lee in his personal capacity
for failure to timely serve process on him. 	(Docket No. 125). 	Magistrate Judge López
found that the only information Plaintiff provided in his show cause motion regarding
service attempts was that representatives at Lee’s place of employment refused to confirm
whether Lee was employed or could be served there and a certified mail receipt of a waiver
request sent to Lee. Magistrate Judge López found Plaintiff’s conclusion that, “[d]espite
extensive and good-faith efforts” he had been unable to identify other addresses or places
of employment for Lee, was insufficient as there were no details as to that those “efforts”
were. (Id.).
ANALYSIS
The Court may refer dispositive motions to a Magistrate Judge for an R&R. See 28
1 By then, Plaintiff had 137 days to serve Lee.
Case 3:24-cv-01511-CVR Document 242 Filed 01/22/26 Page 2 of 4

Peter David Schiff v. Internal Revenue Service, et al.
Opinion and Order
Civil 24-1511 (CVR)
Page 3
_______________________________
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Within fourteen days of receiving a copy of
the R&R, “a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings
and recommendations.” Id.
Upon filing of a timely objection, a party is entitled to a de novo determination of
“those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
specific objection is made.” Total Petroleum Puerto Rico Corp. v. Fonseca-Marrero, Civil
No. 16-2436 (PAD), 2018 WL 6131777, at *1 (D.P.R. 2018) (quotation omitted); see also
Ponsa-Rabell v. Santander Securities, LLC, Civil No. 17-2243 (CCC), 2020 WL 4219685,
at *1 (D.P.R. 2022). The Court, however, need not “consider frivolous, conclusive, or
general objections.” 	Local Rule 72(d); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); Rodríguez-González v.
Astrue, 854 F.Supp.2d 176, 178 (D.P.R. 2012). And if objections merely repeat arguments
already made to the magistrate judge, a de novo review is unwarranted, and the Court will
review those portions of the R&R for clear error. Id. The Court may “accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C).
Plaintiff timely filed a “Motion to Vacate the Report & Recommendation (ECF 125)
and for Leave to Effect Service by Publication (Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(E)(1), 4(I)(3); P.R. R. Civ.
P. 4.6)” which the Court will consider as an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R.
(Docket No. 128). Plaintiff’s filing elaborates on the efforts Magistrate Judge López found
wanting but merely adds that process servers went to Lee’s presumed work address 2 on
three occasions and he sent an unsuccessful Freedom of Information Act request to the
2 The IRS had already refused to indicate whether Lee was employed or could be served at said location, so this cannot
even begin to be considered “extensive” or “good faith” efforts.
Case 3:24-cv-01511-CVR Document 242 Filed 01/22/26 Page 3 of 4

Peter David Schiff v. Internal Revenue Service, et al.
Opinion and Order
Civil 24-1511 (CVR)
Page 4
_______________________________
IRS for Lee’s last-known work and home address locations. He again asked to be allowed
to serve by publication and for an extra sixty (60) days in which to effect service.
The explanation provided as to the service efforts fares no better, as it adds
information not previously on the record and a party objecting to an R&R is not “entitled
as of right to a de novo review by the [district] judge of an argument never raised” before
the Magistrate Judge. 3 See United States v. Rosado-Cancel, 917 F.3d 66, 69 (1st Cir.
2019); López Mulero v. Vélez Colón, 490 F.Supp.2d 214, 217-218 (D.P.R. 2007) (Absent
a proper objection, though, the Court need only satisfy itself that there is no plain error in
the Magistrate Judge's findings to adopt the same). Plaintiff was given an opportunity to
detail his service of process efforts and came up short. Thus, Plaintiff cannot get a second
bite at the apple.
In sum, upon a careful review, the Court finds Magistrate Judge López’ R&R to be
well-reasoned and without error. Accordingly, the R&R is ADOPTED it in its entirety.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the R&R (Docket No. 125) is ADOPTED, and all claims
filed by Plaintiff against Jim Lee, in his personal capacity, are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, on this 22 nd day of January 2026.
S/CAMILLE L. VELEZ-RIVE
CAMILLE L. VELEZ RIVE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 Even if the Court were to consider these meager efforts at service, they are plainly insufficient as well.
Case 3:24-cv-01511-CVR Document 242 Filed 01/22/26 Page 4 of 4