United States of America v. One Million One Hundred Thirty One Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Two Dollars ($1,131,792.00) In U.S. Currency et al

Filing 39

ORDER Adopting 38 Report and Recommendation, Denying Plaintiff's 25 MOTION to Strike, and Resetting Dates re 14 Scheduling Order, (Discovery due by 7/8/2019, Dispositive Motion Cut-off Reset for 8/7/2019, Final Pretrial Conference Reset for 1/8/2020 02:00 PM before District Judge Stephen J. Murphy III, Jury Trial Reset for 1/21/2020 09:00 AM before District Judge Stephen J. Murphy III). Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (DPar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 2:17-cv-14005

Plaintiff,

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

v.
ONE MILLION ONE
HUNDRED THIRTY-ONE
THOUSAND SEVEN
HUNDRED NINETY-TWO
DOLLARS ($1,131,792.00) IN
U.S. CURRENCY, et al.,
Defendants in rem,
and
LONNIE STRIBLING,
Claimant.

/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [38], DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE [25], AND RESETTING DATES
On October 2, 2018, the Court stayed discovery pending resolution of Plaintiff's
motion to strike Claimant Lonnie Stribling's claim to the Defendants in rem. On
October 15, 2018, the Court referred an evidentiary hearing and the motion to strike
to the magistrate judge for resolution. ECF 33. On March 18, 2019, the magistrate
judge conducted the evidentiary hearing. On March 20, 2019, the magistrate judge
filed her report and recommendation ("Report") and suggested that the Court deny
Plaintiff's motion to strike. ECF 38. No party timely objected. The Court will adopt
the Report, deny Plaintiff's motion to strike, and reset the case schedule.
1

The Report provides appropriate background and the Court adopts it here. See
ECF 38, PgID 490–91.
Civil Rule 72(b) governs the review of a magistrate judge's report. A district
court's review depends on whether a party files objection. The Court need not review
portions of a report to which no party has objected. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
153 (1985). The Civil Rules require de novo review only if the parties "serve and file
specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). In conducting a de novo review, "[t]he district judge may accept,
reject, or modify the recommend disposition; receive further evidence; or return the
matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Because no party timely objected to the Report, the Court need not conduct a
de novo review. The Court will adopt the magistrate judge's well-reasoned and
legally-sound Report and will deny Plaintiff's motion to strike. The Court will also lift
the stay of discovery and will reset the schedule for the case.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the report and recommendation
[38] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to strike [25]
is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the stay on discovery is LIFTED.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadlines for the case are RESET
as follows:
Discovery Ends:
Dispositive Motions Due:
Final Pretrial Conference:
Trial:

July 8, 2019
August 7, 2019
January 8, 2020
January 21, 2020

SO ORDERED.
s/ Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: April 4, 2019
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on April 4, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/ David P. Parker
Case Manager

3