U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2004

Tilley v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided January 15, 2004 · Duncan, Luttig, Shedd

85 F. App'x 333

Counsel

Thomas E. Tilley, Iris M. Tilley, Appellants pro se. Charles Bricken, Karen Grace Gregory, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision. The 12 that cite it most often are listed here.

Thomas v. UNC Health Care System (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 2025)
Morris v. CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 2023)
Johnson v. Lendlease (US) Public Partnerships LLC (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 2022)
Matemu v. Brienzi (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 2021)
Rubin v. Town of Apex (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 2020)
Franklin Livestock, Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 2015)
United States v. Godley (District Court, W.D. North Carolina 2015)
Turner v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2010)
Jackson v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2010)
O'MEARA v. Waters (District Court, D. Maryland 2006)
Greeley Publishing Co. v. Hergert (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 2006)
Tilley Et Ux. v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 2004)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Thomas E. Tilley and Iris M. Tilley appeal from the magistrate judge’s order * granting summary judgment in favor of the government in the Tilleys’ action seeking a refund of income taxes paid for 1991, 1992, 1994, and 1995. On appeal, the Tilleys assert two issues-both concern only Thomas Tilley’s tax liability for 1994 and 1995. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. See Tilley v. United States, No. CA-02-629-1 (M.D.N.C. July 11, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.