ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FIRST and SECOND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

BETH BLOOM, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the United States of America's (the "Government") Omnibus Motion to Dismiss Petitions that are Not Verified and/or that were Filed by a Non-Lawyer on Behalf of a Business Entity ("Motion"), ECF No. [212], which was previously referred to the Honorable Alicia O. Valle for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. See ECF Nos. 126, 131, 177, 213 and 228. On January 13, 2015, Judge Valle issued a Report and Recommendation Regarding Ancillary Forfeiture Proceedings recommending that the Government's Motion be granted in part and denied in part, ECF No. [224]. As to certain petitions that were not verified, Judge Valle recommends dismissal of petitions at ECF Nos. 142, 170 and 173. As to those petitions filed by non-lawyers on behalf of business entities, Judge Valle recommends dismissal of petitions at ECF Nos. 116, 117, 136, 147, 148, and sua sponte recommends dismissal of the petition at ECF No. 220 due to untimeliness. Judge Valle denied the Motion with respect to the petitions at ECF Nos.118 and 155/156/193. See ECF No. 224 at 13. This Court notes that the petitions at ECF No. [155] and ECF No. [156] were denied as moot in light of the claimant's amended petition, ECF No. [193]. See ECF No. [225]. Following the Government's filing of its Motion for Correction, ECF No. [231], Judge Valle issued a Second Report and Recommendation, ECF No. [232] clarifying that Sierra Silver and Gold Buyers' petition was docketed at ECF No. [117]. That Second Report and Recommendation recommended dismissal of that petition as it was filed by a non-lawyer on behalf of a business entity. Claimant, C&M Jewelry has filed its objections to the Report, ECF No. [226]. The basis of the objection is a claimed lack of notice of both a status conference held and a scheduling order that followed. C&M Jewelry admits that it had knowledge of the criminal case pending. Moreover, it admits its error in not having the claim verified. The 30-day statutory period for filing third-party claims against the forfeited property expired on April 21, 2014. While labeled as "verified", the petition at issue, ECF No. [220], is unverified as required under 21 U.S.C. §853(n)(3). Although the petition is dated December 2, 2014, it was not filed until January 9, 2015. The objection fails to set forth a sufficient basis for this delay. Having considered Judge Valle's Reports and Recommendations, C&M Jewelry's objections, and having made a de novo review of the record, see Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)), this Court finds Judge Valle's Reports and Recommendations to be well reasoned and correct. The Court agrees with the analysis in Judge Valle's First and Second Reports and Recommendations and concludes that the Government's Motion should be granted in part and denied in part. C&M Jewelry's Objections are overruled and the petition at ECF No. [220] should be dismissed for the reasons set forth therein.

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Magistrate Judge Valle's Report and Recommendation Regarding Ancillary Forfeiture Proceeding, ECF No. [224], and Order Granting the Government's Motion for Correction and Second Report and Recommendation, ECF No. [232], are hereby ADOPTED;

2. Petitions at ECF Nos. 116, 117, 136, 142, 147, 148, 170, 173 and 220 are dismissed.

3. Petitions at ECF Nos. 118 and 193 remain viable.

DONE and ORDERED.