Opinion
Civil Action No. 06-cv-01559-MSK-MEH.
March 19, 2007
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND FOR FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment and Final Order of Forfeiture (#16), which the Magistrate Judge recommends (#18) should be granted. Nobody has responded to the motion or objected to the recommendation. Having considered the same, the Court
FINDS and CONCLUDES that:
The Plaintiff, United States of America, commenced this civil forfeiture action in rem against two vehicles: a 2004 Nissan Maxima (VIN# 1N4BA41E54C909062), and a 2000 Volkswagen Jetta (VIN# 3VWTE29MXYM016728). The Verified Complaint alleges, inter alia, that both vehicles were believed to have been purchased with proceeds from bank robberies which occurred shortly before either purchase. It also alleges that the Nissan Maxima was used in one or more bank robberies. Both vehicles are titled in the name of Elizabeth Martinez, and the Volkswagen Jetta is also titled in the name of Darius Limon.
The United States Marshal seized both vehicles and published a notice for four consecutive weeks in "The Daily Journal." It also mailed a notice (#6, #7) to Ms. Martinez and Mr. Limon, the two individuals known to be interested parties. Nobody has contested the forfeiture of either vehicle. The Clerk of Court entered a default against both vehicles on December 27, 2006.
The Plaintiff now seeks the entry of default judgment against the two vehicles. It also requests a final order of forfeiture, and entry of a Certificate of Reasonable Cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the motion be granted. He concludes that, by a preponderance of the evidence, reasonable cause existed for the seizure based upon the sworn allegations in the Complaint. In particular, he has determined that the temporal proximity between the purchases of the vehicles and bank robberies involving Mr. Limon, combined with other sworn facts, demonstrates reasonable cause for the seizure of both vehicles.
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a party may object to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's recommendation by filing specific objections within 10 days of the party's receipt of the recommendation. When timely objections have been filed, this Court must review de novo the specific conclusions of the Magistrate Judge to which objections have been directed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Northington v. Marin, 102 F.3d 1564, 1570 (10th Cir. 1996). However, when no objections are filed, the Court may apply whatever standard of review it deems appropriate. Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991).
Nobody has filed any opposition to the Plaintiff's motion, nor any objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Upon consideration of the allegations in the Verified Complaint, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation is not clearly erroneous. The sworn statements in the Verified Complaint establish probable cause for a judgment of forfeiture by a preponderance of the evidence. Because the showing of probable cause is unrebutted, forfeiture is permitted. See United States v. One Hundred Forty-Nine Thousand Four Hundred Forty-Two Dollars and 43/100 ($149,442.43) Dollars in United States Currency, 965 F.2d 868, 876 (10th Cir. 1992).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
(1) The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (#18) is ADOPTED.
(2) The Motion for Default Judgment and Final Order of Forfeiture (#16) is GRANTED.
(3) A default judgment and final order of forfeiture shall enter in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants, and shall serve as a Certificate of Reasonable Cause under 28 U.S.C. § 2465.