U.S. v. $5,520.00 in United States Currency

Full title: United States of America Plaintiff, v. $5,520.00 in United States…

Court: United States District Court, W.D. New York

Date published: Apr 26, 2005

03CV517A (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2005)

Opinion

03CV517A.

April 26, 2005

Report Recommendation

HUGH SCOTT, Magistrate Judge

Pending before the Court is the plaintiff's motion for a default judgment and an order of forfeiture (Docket No. 34).

The United States seized the subject funds pursuant to the execution of a warrant on July 24, 2003. Public notice of the seizure was published as required. A previous claim filed with respect to the funds was withdrawn. There are no pending claims to the funds.

A response to the instant motion was to be filed on or before November 30, 2004. No response has been filed. The instant motion is unopposed and it appears that there are no pending claims relating to the subject funds in this case. It is recommended that the motion for a default judgment and order of forfeiture be granted.

Pursuant to 28 USC § 636(b)(1), it is hereby ordered that this Report Recommendation be filed with the Clerk of the Court and that the Clerk shall send a copy of the Report Recommendation to all parties. ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of this Court within ten(10) days after receipt of a copy of this Report Recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Rules 6(a), 6(e) and 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as WDNY Local Rule 72(a)(3). FAILURE TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO THIS REPORT RECOMMENDATION WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME, OR TO REQUEST AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS, WAIVES THE RIGHT TO APPEAL ANY SUBSEQUENT ORDER BY THE DISTRICT COURT ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed2d 435 (1985); F.D.I.C. v. Hillcrest Associates, 66 F.3d 566 (2d. Cir. 1995); Wesolak v. Canadair Ltd., 838 F.2d 55 (2d Cir. 1988); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Rules 6(a), 6(e) and 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and WDNY Local Rule 72(a)(3).

Please also note that the District Court, on de novo review, will ordinarily refuse to consider arguments, case law and/or evidentiary material which could have been, but was not, presented to the Magistrate Judge in the first instance. SeePatterson-Leitch Co. Inc. v. Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Co., 840 F.2d 985 (1st Cir. 1988).

Finally, the parties are reminded that, pursuant to WDNY Local Rule 72.3(a)(3), "written objections shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made and the basis for such objection and shall be supported by legal authority." Failure to comply with the provisions of Rule 72.3(a)(3)may result in the District Court's refusal to consider the objection.

So ordered.