REPORT AND RECOM M ENDATION

ALICIA M. OTAZO-REYES, Magistrate Judge.

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Petitioner Dana Ramos' ("Ramos") Verified Petition to Validate Interest in Forfeited Personal Property (hereafter, "Petition") [D.E.622]. This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. j 636 by the Honorable Ursula Ungaro, United States District Judge [D.E.624]. The undersigned held a hearing on the Petition on August 27, 2014.

In her Petition, Ramos asserted an interest in a 2004 Ford F-150 Truck ("F-150) that was seized from her husband, Defendant Rafael Ramos Lopez, on the grounds that she had provided the funds forthe purchase of the vehicle. At the request of the government, the undersigned allowed discovery to be conducted regarding Ramos's asserted interest [D.E.631]. After conducting discovery, the government filed a Response to the Petition, contending that Ramos lacks constitutional standing to assert a claim for the F-150 [D.E.655]. Specifically, the government contends that Ramos cannot establish that she has a legal right, title, or interest in the F-150, given that the vehicle was purchased by her husband and that he is the title owner. Id. (citing 21U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)). At the hearing, counsel for Petitioner conceded that the United States' position is legally correct. The undersigned complimented counsel for his candor to the Court and also complimented the government for having released to Ramos another vehicle subject to forfeiture (a 2003 Nissan 350-Z) due to her claim of hardship.

Given Petitioner's counsel'sconcession and upon a review of the record, the undersigned RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDS that the Petition be DENIED.

The parties have fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of this Report and Recommendation within which to serve and file objections, if any, with the Honorable Ursula Ungaro, United States District Judge. See Local Magistrate Rule 4(b). Failure to timely file objections shall bar the parties from attacking on appeal the factual findings contained herein. See Resolution Trust Corp. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993).

RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED.