United States of America v. $40,000.00 in United States Currency

Filing 12

ORDER denying 9 Motion to Dismiss; terminating 11 Memorandum and Recommendations.. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 6/5/10. (siw)

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION C IV IL CASE NO. 1:09cv383 U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P l a i n t if f , vs . $ 4 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 in UNITED STATES CURRENCY, D e fen d a n t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER TH IS MATTER is before the Court on the Renewed Motion to D is m is s of the claimant, Elliott David Morris [Doc. 9]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the standing Orders of D e s ig n a tio n of this Court, United States Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Howell wa s designated to consider this Motion and to submit recommendations for its disposition. On May 11, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a M e m o ra n d u m and Recommendation [Doc. 11] in which he recommended d e n yin g the motion to dismiss. The parties were advised that any o b je c tio n s to the Magistrate Judge's conclusions and recommendations we re to be filed in writing within fourteen days of service of the Recommendation and that failure to file objections to the Memorandum and R e c o m m e n d a tio n would preclude the parties from raising any objection on a p p e a l. [Doc. 11, at 10]. The period within which to file objections expired o n May 28, 2010 and no written objections to the Memorandum and R e c o m m e n d a tio n have been filed. T h e Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation is s u p p o rte d by the record and the law. Accordingly, the Court hereby a c c e p ts the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Renewed Motion to Dismiss o f the claimant, Elliott David Morris [Doc. 9] is hereby DENIED. Signed: June 5, 2010

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?