Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Menaged, CR17-680-1-PHX-GMS. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Arizona Number: infdco20180525787 Visitors: 8
Filed: May 23, 2018
Latest Update: May 23, 2018
Summary: ORDER G. MURRAY SNOW , District Judge . Pending before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Burns' Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). Doc. 235. The R&R recommends that the Court grant Government's Motion to Dismiss Petition Contesting Forfeiture (Doc. 222), and that Claimant's Verified Petition for Hearing on Preliminary Order of Forfeiture and Claim of Exemption from Forfeiture (Doc. 212) be dismissed without prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen
More

ORDER

Pending before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Burns' Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). Doc. 235. The R&R recommends that the Court grant Government's Motion to Dismiss Petition Contesting Forfeiture (Doc. 222), and that Claimant's Verified Petition for Hearing on Preliminary Order of Forfeiture and Claim of Exemption from Forfeiture (Doc. 212) be dismissed without prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact. Id. at ___ (citing [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)]).

The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) ("[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection."); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) ("The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to."). The Court will accept the R&R and grant Government's Motion to Dismiss Petition Contesting Forfeiture and dismiss with prejudice Claimant's Verified Petition for Hearing on Preliminary Order of Forfeiture and Claim of Exemption from Forfeiture. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate"); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) ("The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.").

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Burns' R&R (Doc. 235) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Government's Motion to Dismiss Petition Contesting Forfeiture (Doc. 222), and dismissing without prejudice Claimant's Verified Petition for Hearing on Preliminary Order of Forfeiture and Claim of Exemption from Forfeiture (Doc. 212).

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer