
    Chris E. BANKSTON; Diane R. Bankston, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-1258.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Dec. 17, 2009.
    Chris E. Bankston, Lafayette, CO, pro se.
    
      Diane R. Bankston, Lafayette, CO, pro se.
    Aaron Michael Bailey, John Schumann, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before LUCERO, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 84(f).

Plaintiffs, Chris and Diane Bankston, filed suit against the Internal Revenue Service seeking monetary damages and in-junctive relief based on the IRS’s issuance of notices of levy against Mrs. Bankston for a total amount of $18,877.53 in unpaid federal taxes. Plaintiffs alleged that they are not subject to federal income taxes because they are each “a domiciled natural person and one of the people.” (R. at 12.) The magistrate judge recommended denial of their motion for a temporary restraining order based upon, inter alia, lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The magistrate judge also recommended dismissal of their complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, among other reasons. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations and dismissed the case.

Nothing in Plaintiffs’ briefs or the authorities cited therein persuades us that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims against the IRS and the U.S. government. For substantially the reasons given by the magistrate judge and district court, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of a temporary restraining order and dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 
      
       This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
     