UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. $10,000.00 in U. S. Currency

Filing 26

ORDER granting 22 Motion to Strike. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 6/4/2013. (Sawyer, D.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
NO: 5:12-CV-217-D

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

v.

0

R

D

E

R

$10,000.00 IN U. S. CURRENCY,
Defendant.

On March 22, 2013 the Court entered an Order granting the
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses.

The claimant

was given until April 11, 2013 to fully and completely respond
to the plaintiff's discovery requests, which consisted of both
interrogatories and requests for production of documents.

The

claimant was warned by the Court that his claim and answer would
be stricken and default entered if the discovery was not
answered.

No responses to the discovery have been received by

the Government.

Nor has the claimant responded to this motion.

Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides
that a party may apply for an order compelling discovery.

As a

sanction for failure to comply with a discovery order, Rule
37 (b) (2) (A) (iii)

&

(vi) provide that the court may dismiss the

action or proceeding or render judgment by default against the

disobedient party.

In addition, Rule 37 (b) (2) (A) (vii) provides

that the court may treat the failure to obey a discovery order
as contempt of court.
As the claimant has both failed to respond to discovery as
required by the Court's Order or provide any reason for such
failure to respond,

in accordance with the above stated rule, it

is hereby
ORDERED that the verified Claim and Answer filed by the
claimant on June 13, 2012 and June 29, 2012,

respectively, are

stricken as a sanction for his failure to obey the Court's
Order.
Examination of the Court files and records shows that the
defendant currency was served while in the custody of the United
States Marshal on May 3, 2012

(Doc. #5).

Notice of publication was available on the
www.forfeiture.gov

web site between May 4, 2012 and June 2,

2 0 12 ( Doc . # 12 ) .
Service of plaintiff's Complaint and the Warrant of Arrest
In Rem was made on Sekou Mady Sinayoko, potential claimant, via
certified mail return-receipt on May 7, 2012.
More than 35 days have elapsed since the date on which the
in rem defendant and potential claimant were served with the

2

Warrant of Arrest and a copy of the Complaint, excluding the
date thereof.
No other person has filed a verified claim in this action
or answered or plead as required by Rule G(5) of the
Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime and Asset
Forfeiture Claims and, as the Court has stricken the claimant's
claim and answer, there is no responsive pleading.

Accordingly,

the Clerk of Court is hereby DIRECTED to enter default against
the defendant property, whereupon default judgment may be
entered.
_____.

SO ORDERED this ~ day of _..l~v~n~t~------' 2013.

JAME
Chie

C.
District Judge

3