Cummings v. United States of America
ORDER ADOPTING 4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ; denying as moot 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; and dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff's 1 Motion for Return of Unlawfully Seized Property. This case is stricken from the active docket. Signed by Chief Judge Gina M. Groh on 5/26/2017. Copy sent certified mail, return receipt to pro se Plaintiff.(tlg) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/26/2017: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (cwm).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:17-CV-46
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court for consideration of a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble. Pursuant to this
Court’s Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for submission
of an R&R. On April 27, 2017, Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R, recommending
that this Court dismiss without prejudice the Plaintiff’s motion for return of property and
deny as moot her application to proceed without prepayment of fees.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court is required to make a de novo
review of those portions of the magistrate judge’s findings to which objection is made.
However, this Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the
factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge to which no objections are made.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file objections in a timely manner
constitutes a waiver of de novo review and a plaintiff’s right to appeal this Court’s order.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United
States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984).
In this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, objections to Magistrate Judge Trumble’s R&R were due within
fourteen days after being served with a copy of the same. The R&R was sent to the
Plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt requested, on April 27, 2017. ECF No. 4. Service
was accepted by the Plaintiff on May 2, 2017. ECF No. 6. To date, no objections have
been filed and thus the Court will review the R&R for clear error.
Upon consideration, the Court finds that it is without jurisdiction to consider the
Plaintiff’s motion for return of property. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
41(g) and the Fourth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Garcia, 65 F.3d 17 (4th Cir.
1995), the Plaintiff must file her motion in the district in which the property was seized.
Here, the proper court is the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.
Accordingly, upon review, and finding no error, the Court ORDERS Magistrate
Judge Trumble’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 4] ADOPTED for the reasons
more fully stated therein. The Court DISMISSES the Plaintiff’s motion [ECF No. 1]
WITHOUT PREJUDICE and DENIES her application to proceed without prepayment of
fees [ECF No. 2] AS MOOT.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to strike this case from the active docket and
transmit a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt
DATED: May 26, 2017
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?