United States of America v. Thirty-Five Thousand One Hundred Fifty-Seven and 00/100

Filing 25

ORDER entered by Judge Sara Darrow on September 6, 2017. The 24 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety. The 8 Amended Verified Claim of Interest and 9 Verified Answer are stricken and a judgment of default shall enter against all potential claimants. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close the case. (AK, ilcd)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 06 September, 2017 01:26:25 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND ONE
HUNDRED FIFTY-SEVEN AND 00/100
($35,157.00) IN U.S. CURRENCY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:13-cv-04108-SLD-JEH

Defendant.
ORDER
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation that recommends Claimant Froilan D.
Lule’s Amended Verified Claim of Interest and Verified Answer be stricken and default
judgment be entered. ECF No. 24. For the following reasons, the Report and Recommendation
is ADOPTED.
When a magistrate judge considers a pretrial matter dispositive of a party’s claim or
defense, he must make a record of all evidentiary proceedings, and must enter a recommended
disposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). Parties may object within fourteen days of being served
with a copy of the recommended disposition. Id. 72(b)(2). The district judge then considers de
novo the portions of the magistrate judge’s recommended disposition that were properly objected
to, and may accept, reject, modify the recommended disposition, or return it to the magistrate
judge for further proceedings. Id. 72(b)(3). If no objection is made, or only partial objection, the
district judge reviews the unobjected portions for clear error only. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp.,
170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).

1

Plaintiff, the United States of America, filed its Verified Complaint for Forfeiture of
$35,157.00 in United States Currency on December 9, 2013. ECF No. 1. Claimant filed an
Amended Verified Claim of Interest, ECF No. 8, on February 11, 2014, and a Verified Answer,
ECF No. 9, on March 4, 2014. During a Status Conference held on June 26, 2017, while
discovery was underway, Claimant’s counsel explained that he had not been in direct contact
with Claimant since 2014. Notice was provided that if Claimant’s counsel could not locate
Claimant, default would be a viable option. The Court has the power to dismiss a claim when
the claimant has abandoned the litigation. Cf. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31
(1962) (“The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been
considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily
vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious
disposition of cases.”). After Claimant’s counsel filed a Status Report explaining his
unsuccessful efforts to locate Claimant, ECF No. 23, the magistrate judge entered this Report
and Recommendation, ECF No. 24. No objections were filed.
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the applicable law,
this Court finds no clear error. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 24, is ADOPTED in
its entirety. The Amended Verified Claim of Interest, ECF No. 8, and Verified Answer, ECF
No. 9, are stricken and a judgment of default shall enter against all potential claimants. The
Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close the case.
Entered this 6th day of September, 2017.
s/ Sara Darrow
SARA DARROW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2