Glover v. United States of America et al

Filing 128

ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference. Accordingly, the Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss [Doc. 36] is GRANTED with respect to the Vehicle and DENIED without prejudice with respect to the Check. Signed by Honorable Jacquelyn D Austin on 5/10/2024. (agaz, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Tekoa Tobias Glover,
Plaintiff,
v.
United States of America; Drug
Enforcement Agency; D.E.A. Agent
Farid Rajaee,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 6:22-cv-01895-JDA-MHC

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants United
States of America and Drug Enforcement Administration 1 (“DEA”) (collectively, the
“Moving Defendants”). [Doc. 36.] In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Molly H. Cherry for pre-trial proceedings.
On June 20, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) recommending that the motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part.
[Doc. 55.] The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements
for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so.
[Id. at 21.] On August 15, 2023, Plaintiff’s objections to the Report were entered on the

As the Magistrate Judge noted, Defendant Drug Enforcement Agency, as it is
listed on the docket in this case, is properly identified as Drug Enforcement
Administration. [Doc. 55 at 1 n.1.]
1

docket 2 [Doc. 68], and on August 28, 2023, the Moving Defendants filed a reply to
Plaintiff’s objections [Doc. 70]. 3
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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 the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The
Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report to
which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court will review the
Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident 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 a 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” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

As the Moving Defendants note [Doc. 70 at 1 n.1], Plaintiff’s objections were
untimely because they were due by July 14, 2023. [Doc. 64 (Text Order extending the
objections deadline to July 14, 2023).] However, out of an abundance of caution for the
pro se Plaintiff, the Court accepts Plaintiff’s untimely objections.
2

The Honorable Sherri A. Lydon, United States District Judge, issued an Order
adopting the Report on August 9, 2023. [Doc. 66.] However, on February 5, 2024, Judge
Lydon vacated the August 9, 2023, Order because of a potential conflict of interest in the
matter. [Doc. 100.] The case was reassigned to the undersigned on February 16, 2024.
[Doc. 107.]
3

2

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this action challenging the forfeitures of assets stemming from his
criminal action. [Doc. 1.] More specifically, he asserts that a 2012 Infiniti QX56 (the
“Vehicle”) and a Wells Fargo check in the amount of $36,370.00 (the “Check”) were
seized in violation of his constitutional rights and the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of
2000. [Id. at 1, 4.] He seeks judicial review of the forfeitures under the Administrative
Procedures Act and asks the Court to order the property and currency be released to him
with interest added. [Id. at 2, 8.]
The Magistrate Judge provided an accurate and thorough recitation of the facts
and, therefore, the Court includes only the factual information necessary to address
Plaintiff’s objections. Plaintiff was arrested on June 20, 2018. See United States of
America v. Glover, No. 6:18-cr-00588-TMC, Doc. 46 (D.S.C. June 21, 2018). 4

On

January 28, 2019, Plaintiff pled guilty to drug trafficking conspiracy and money laundering
conspiracy charges. See id., Docs. 362–64 (D.S.C. Jan. 28, 2019).
The Vehicle, which Plaintiff owned [Doc. 1 at 3], was judicially forfeited as part of
Plaintiff’s criminal case; on October 18, 2019, the sentencing court entered a Preliminary
Order of Forfeiture, ordering Plaintiff to forfeit his interest in the Vehicle, see Glover, No.
6:18-cr-00588-TMC, Doc. 533 (D.S.C. Oct. 18, 2019). In the absence of any claims by
third parties, the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture became the Final Order of Forfeiture on
December 30, 2019. See id., Doc. 574 (D.S.C. Dec. 30, 2019).

In reviewing a 12(b)(6) dismissal motion, a court may “properly take judicial notice
of matters of public record” without converting the dismissal motion into one for summary
judgment. Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem’l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009). Court
filings are public records of which a federal court may take judicial notice. See Witthohn
v. Fed. Ins. Co., 164 F. App’x 395, 397 (4th Cir. 2006).
4

3

The Check, on the other hand, was administratively forfeited. On September 27,
2018, the DEA issued a Notice of Seizure of Property and Initiation of Administrative
Forfeiture Proceedings regarding the Check. [Doc. 1-3.] The Check was ultimately
administratively forfeited. See Glover, No. 6:18-cr-00588-TMC, Doc. 533 (D.S.C. Oct.
18, 2019) (Preliminary Order of Forfeiture, noting that the DEA administratively forfeited
the Check around February 11, 2019).
DISCUSSION
The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Moving Defendants’ motion to dismiss
(a) be granted with respect to the Vehicle because it was judicially forfeited in Plaintiff’s
criminal case and he waived his appeal rights by pleading guilty, and (b) be denied without
prejudice with respect to the Check. [Doc. 55.] In his objections, Plaintiff primarily objects
to certain statements in the Background section of the Report that have no bearing on the
Report’s ultimate conclusion that Plaintiff’s claims with respect to the Vehicle fail as a
matter of law. [Doc. 68 at 1–4.] Plaintiff also generally objects to the Report’s conclusion
that Plaintiff cannot challenge the Vehicle’s forfeiture and relies on some inapplicable
case law. [Id. at 4–5.] However, Plaintiff’s objections fail to address the Magistrate
Judge’s legal analysis or conclusion that Plaintiff cannot collaterally challenge the criminal
forfeiture of the Vehicle in this separate civil proceeding. [Doc. 55 at 10–12.] Instead, his
objections focus on the Court’s justification for the initial seizure.

[Doc. 68 at 5.]

Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution for the pro se Plaintiff, the Court has
conducted a de novo review of the Report, the record, and the applicable law regarding
the Vehicle.

Upon such review, the Court accepts the Report with respect to the

recommendation that the motion to dismiss be granted as to the Vehicle.

4

Neither party has objected to the recommendation that the Moving Defendants’
motion to dismiss be denied without prejudice with respect to the Check. 5

Having

reviewed the Report, the record, and the applicable law regarding the Check, the Court
finds no clear error.

Thus, the Court accepts the Report with respect to the

recommendation that the motion to dismiss be denied without prejudice as to the Check.
Based upon the foregoing, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference.

Accordingly, the Moving

Defendants’ motion to dismiss [Doc. 36] is GRANTED with respect to the Vehicle and
DENIED without prejudice with respect to the Check.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin
United States District Judge

May 10, 2024
Columbia, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules
3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Although Plaintiff refers to the Check in his objections [Doc. 68 at 2–3], he does
not object to the recommendation that the motion to dismiss be denied with respect to the
Check.
5

5