Simeon Lewis, who also uses name Simeon Washa Amen Ra, describes himself indigenous inhabitant traveler” also “One We People.” His employer, Railway Company, has money paychecks for (1) current taxes, (2) back taxes for which served company levy, delinquent a 16 ‐ 1444 2 circuit court in Cook County, issued garnishment orders. In action, accuses one of its executives of violating the Constitution Illinois law, Lewis seeks to halt deductions from his pay the return of amounts already collected.

The district court, adopting magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissed the action. First, the court reasoned, the Anti ‐ Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a), precludes it from exercising subject ‐ matter jurisdiction over claims intended to thwart the collection of income tax. See v. Am. Friends Serv. Comm ., 419 U.S. 7, 9–10 (concluding that § 7421(a) precluded suit challenging withholding of income tax); Cleveland v. C.I.R. , 600 F.3d 739, 740, 742 (7th Cir. 2010) (concluding that § 7421(a) precluded action challenging IRS’s use of “lock ‐ in letter” that directed employer to disregard Forms W ‐ 4 submitted by taxpayer withhold tax at specified rate); Stefanelli v. Silvestri , 524 Supp. 1317, 1318–19 (D. Nev. 1981) (explaining that lawsuit challenging employer’s refusal to honor taxpayer’s Forms 4 after receiving “lock ‐ in letter” from IRS, although “styled as one seeking relief against in their capacity an employer of Plaintiff,” in fact action to enjoin Government collecting taxes”), aff’d , 698 F.2d 1232 (9th Cir. 1982). Second, district court continued, an cannot liable complying an IRS of levy. See 26 U.S.C. § 3403; Burda v. M. Ecker Co. , 2 F.3d 769, 775 (7th Cir. 1993); Edgar v. Inland Steel Co. , 744 F.2d 1276, 1278 (7th Cir. 1984). And, finally, court concluded, Rooker Feldman doctrine, see D.C. of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983), Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923), divests it of matter jurisdiction to review court’s orders garnishing Lewis’s wages to pay overdue child support. See Sykes v. Cook Cnty. Cir. Ct. Prob. Div. , 837 F.3d 736, 742–43 (7th Cir. 2016); T.W. v. Brophy , F.3d 893, (7th Cir. 1997). appeals dismissal, but district court’s analysis disposes his contentions. brief frivolously challenges existence circuit court’s orders repeats other frivolous theories that have rejected

other cases. Towe Antique Ford Found. v. I.R.S. , F.2d 1387, (9th Cir. 1993) (reiterating taxpayer does right judicial hearing before IRS levy becomes enforceable); Bright v. Bechtel Petroleum, Inc. , F.2d 768, (9th Cir. 1986) (concluding employee’s lawsuit, pleaded contract action challenging employer’s tax pursuant directive, barred by Anti ‐ Injunction Act); Maxfield v. U.S. Postal Serv. F.2d 433–34 (9th Cir. 1984) (concluding Anti Injunction Act prevented court considering taxpayer’s required accept assertion on Form he exempt paying taxes). warn litigation kind may him sanctions.

AFFIRMED.

[*] agreed unanimously decide case without oral argument because briefs record present facts legal arguments, oral would significantly aid court. F ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).