Opinion
Civil Action No. 04-cv-02143-PSF-PAC.
May 19, 2006
AMENDED ORDER ON CLAIMANT'S OBJECTION TO RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED APRIL 3, 2006.
The motion of the United States to Clarify and Correct Order (Dkt. # 111), filed May 2, 2006, is GRANTED, and the Court's Order of May 1, 2006 (Dkt. # 110) is modifies as follows:
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge entered on April 3, 2006 (Dkt. # 107), in which she recommended that the Court deny claimant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 61), filed October 17, 2005. This case is set for a trial to the Court commencing August 28, 2006. On April 17, 2006, Claimant Claudio Baca filed a general objection to the Recommendation. The matter is ripe for determination.
This in rem case was brought by the United States pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), seeking forfeiture of $20,330 in currency seized in July and August 2003, because the currency was allegedly furnished in exchange for a controlled substance, or was intended to be used to facilitate the sale of a controlled substance. Claimant asserts the monies belong to him, and that the government has not shown probable cause for the forfeiture because the evidence does not demonstrate a substantial connection between the defendant currency and criminal activity.
The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge contains a detailed discussion of the law applicable to forfeiture cases, and the proffered evidence supporting the forfeiture claim in this case. The Magistrate Judge concludes that there are material factual issues about whether the currency belongs to claimant, and whether the currency was, or was intended to be, involved in illegal drug trafficking (Recommendation at 7). Accordingly, she recommends that claimant's Motion for Summary Judgment be denied.
Claimant's general objection (Dkt. # 108) sets forth no specific grounds to demonstrate any erroneous finding by the Magistrate Judge or any improper application of law, offers no additional evidence, and does not even state a reason to reject any specific portion of the Recommendation.
Therefore, the Court having reviewed the Recommendation de novo, in accordance with Rule 72(b), F.R.Civ.P., and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), determines that claimant's Objection (Dkt. # 108) is OVERRULED, the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Dkt. # 107) is accepted in its entirety, and the claimant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 61) is DENIED.