United States of America v. 72000 in US Currency

Filing 43

ORDER: The Court finds no clear error and therefore adopts the Magistrate Judges R & R [ECF No. 40 ]. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Second Motion to Strike Answer [ECF No. 21 ] and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter Claimant's default and to enter a judgment of forfeiture in Plaintiff's favor. Signed by Chief Judge R Bryan Harwell on 07/30/2019. (lsut, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
United States of America,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
$72,000.00 in U.S. Currency, )
Asset ID: 18-DEA-636029, )
)
Defendant,
)
)
Tamela Spruill,
)
)
Claimant.
)
________________________)

Civil Action No.: 4:18-cv-00306-RBH

ORDER

This civil forfeiture matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“R & R”) of the Magistrate Judge, who recommends granting Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Strike
Answer, placing Claimant in default, and ending this matter in Plaintiff’s favor.1 ECF No. 40.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the R & R to which specific objection is made, and the Court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit
the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Neither party has filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.2 In the

1

The Magistrate Judge issued the R & R in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.).
2

Plaintiff’s objections were due by July 22, 2019, and Claimant’s objections were due by July 25, 2019. See
ECF Nos. 40 & 41.

absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection,
a district court need not conduct de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no
clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
72 advisory committee’s note)).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and therefore
adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R & R [ECF No. 40]. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s
Second Motion to Strike Answer [ECF No. 21] and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter Claimant’s default
and to enter a judgment of forfeiture in Plaintiff’s favor.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina
July 30, 2019

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
Chief United States District Judge

2