United States of America v. Cabelka

Filing 323

ORDER ACCEPTING 318 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Having conducted a de novo review of the FCR and Cabelka and Latimer's Objection, the Court OVERRULES each of the Objection; ADOPTS the rea soning in the Magistrate Judge's FCR; GRANTS the United States' 305 Motion to Appoint Receiver; DENIES Cabelka's 311 Motions to Stay, and DENIES Cabelka's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response (ECF No. 322 ). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 66, an order appoints receiver shall issue separately. (Ordered by Judge Reed C. O'Connor on 3/22/2021) (pef)

Case 7:16-cv-00126-O-BP Document 323 Filed 03/22/21

Page 1 of 3 PageID 5807

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WICHITA FALLS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.,
Plaintiff,
v.
LARRY CECIL CABELKA et al.,
Defendants.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.,
Plaintiff,
v.
LARRY CECIL CABELKA et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 7:16-cv-00126-O

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 7:18-cv-00174-O

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On January 19, 2021, the United States Magistrate Judge issued Findings, Conclusions,
and a Recommendation (the “FCR”) in this case. FCR, ECF No. 318. The FCR recommended that
the Court grant the United States’ Motion to Appoint Receiver (ECF Nos. 305) and deny Defendant
Larry Cecil Cabelka’s Motions to Stay (ECF Nos. 311). Id. at 2–3. Defendant Jacqueline Kay
Latimer filed a document on behalf of Cabelka entitled “A Motion to File a Response and
Objection to this Court Out of Time That was Filed on January 19, 2021,” which the Court liberally
construed as an objection to the FCR in light of both Defendants’ pro se status. ECF Nos. 319–20.
The Government responded on March 1, 2021. ECF No. 321.

-1-

Case 7:16-cv-00126-O-BP Document 323 Filed 03/22/21

Page 2 of 3 PageID 5808

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the FCR. For the following reasons, Cabelka
and Latimer’s Objection is OVERRULED, and the Court ADOPTS the reasoning in the
Magistrate Judge’s FCR. The Court GRANTS the United States’ Motion to Appoint Receiver,
DENIES Cabelka’s Motion to Stay, and DENIES Cabelka’s Motion for Extension of Time to File
Response (ECF No. 322).
I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Court incorporates by reference the facts set forth in the prior FCR, ECF No. 216; the

Court’s Order Accepting the prior FCR, ECF No. 220; and the Fifth Circuit’s affirmation of the
Court’s final judgment. See United States v. Cabelka, 766 F. App’x 57 (5th Cir. 2019). The Court
also adopts by references the facts of the Megargel Property Case outlined in the prior FCR on that
case’s docket. See 7:18-cv-00174-O-BP, ECF No. 52.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
The Government is entitled to appointment of a receiver to assist it in collecting on the

judgments the Court entered previously. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rems. Code
§ 31.002(b)(3). Under 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a), the Court may issue “orders appointing Receivers, and
such other orders and processes . . . as may be necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the
internal revenue laws.” Upon request by the United States, the Court may appoint a receiver. Id. §
7402(a).
III.

ANALYSIS OF OBJECTION
Following a judgment entered previously by the Court, the Government has properly

requested that the Court appoint Robert Ogle, a certified public accountant who previously has
served as a court-appointed receiver, to act as the receiver in these cases. Cabelka and Latimer
have agreed to the appointment of a receiver to sell the Megargel property, but they object to the

-2-

Case 7:16-cv-00126-O-BP Document 323 Filed 03/22/21

Page 3 of 3 PageID 5809

receiver selling any other property. ECF Nos. 311–312; see also 7:18-cv-00174-O-BP, ECF Nos.
64–65. As modified by the FCR to resolve the objection, the receiver will be required to obtain
approval of the Court before selling any other properties or assets owned by Cabelka. ECF No.
305 at 4; see also 7:18-cv-00174-O-BP, ECF No. 57 at 4. Thus, the Court will grant the motion to
appoint a receiver as modified.
IV.

ANALYSIS OF MOTIONS FOR STAY AND EXTENSION
Although the Court is sympathetic to Cabelka’s condition, he has not shown good cause

why he cannot respond to the United States’ Motions to Appoint Receiver or retain counsel to
respond on his behalf. Cabelka previously responded to the Government’s Motions to Appoint
Receiver in his Motions to Stay, and most recently, Cabelka filed a Motion for Extension of Time
to File a Response (ECF No. 322). While he has responded and moved for other forms of relief,
Cabelka has not adequately explained why he cannot respond to the United States’ Motions to
Appoint Receiver. Thus, the Court will deny Cabelka’s Motions to Stay (ECF Nos. 311; 7:18-cv00174-O-BP, ECF No. 64) and deny Cableka’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Response
(ECF No. 322).
V.

CONCLUSION
Having conducted a de novo review of the FCR and Cabelka and Latimer’s Objection, the

Court OVERRULES each of the Objection; ADOPTS the reasoning in the Magistrate Judge’s
FCR; GRANTS the United States’ Motion to Appoint Receiver; DENIES Cabelka’s Motions to
Stay, and DENIES Cabelka’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Response (ECF No. 322).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 66, an order appoints receiver shall issue separately.
SO ORDERED on this 22nd day of March, 2021.

-3-

_____________________________________
Reed O’Connor
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE