Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-94-05192/USCOURTS-ca10-94-05192-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 690
Nature of Suit: Other Forfeiture and Penalty Suits
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH 

FILED 

United Statts Court of Appeals Teodl Clrtult 

JAN 171996 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER 

C!erk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

ONE PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY, WITH ) 

BUILDINGS, APPURTENANCES, IMPROVEMENTS, ) 

AND CONTENTS, KNOWN AS: 2121 EAST ) 

30TH STREET, TULSA, OKLAHOMA; AND ONE ) 

1989 CADILLAC 4-DR. FLEETWOOD, ) 

) 

Defendants, ) 

) 

) 

) 

GARY B. HOBBS, J. B. HOBBS, ETHEL MAE ) 

HOBBS, and MARY KAY HOBBS, ) 

) 

Claimants-Appellants. ) 

No. 94-5192 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. No. 90-C-728-C) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Stephen c. 

Assistant 

Appellee. 

Lewis, United States Attorney, 

united States Attorney, Tulsa, 

Catherine Depew Hart, 

Oklahoma, for PlaintiffGary B. Hobbs, ProSe, J. Bryant Hobbs, ProSe, Mary Kay Hobbs, 

Pro Se, Ethel Mae Hobbs, Pro Se. 

Appellate Case: 94-5192 Document: 01019287504 Date Filed: 01/17/1996 Page: 1 
Before TACHA and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and BROWN,* Senior 

District Judge. 

*Honorable wesley E. Brown, Senior District Judge, 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting 

BROWN, Senior District Judge. 

United States 

by designation. 

This case, which arises out of a civil forfeiture action, 

requires us to consider whether a general objection to a 

magistrate's report and recommendation will suffice to preserve a 

party's challenges to that report for appeal. We conclude that it 

will not.l 

Appellant Gary Hobbs, who is an attorney, allegedly used 

proceeds from his criminal activities to purchase a home and a 

car, which ·were the subject of a civil forfeiture action. The 

house was titled in the name of Gary and his wife, Mary Kay Hobbs, 

and the car was titled in the names of Gary's parents, J. Bryant 

and Ethel Mae Hobbs. All four of the Hobbses were personally 

served with the arrest warrant and complaint in the forfeiture 

action, and none of them filed a claim or otherwise appeared in 

the action. The district court entered a judgment of forfeiture 

as to the house, its contents, and the car, in December 1990. 

1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

2 

Appellate Case: 94-5192 Document: 01019287504 Date Filed: 01/17/1996 Page: 2 
In March 1993, Gary Hobbs filed a motion seeking copies of 

all the pleadings in the civil forfeiture case, an accounting of 

the disposition of the property, and an immediate return of the 

property. In July, his wife filed a motion for return of 

property, as did his parents. All of the Hobbses proceeded pro se 

in the district court. The Hobbses contended that their due 

process right~ were violated in the civil forfeiture action. They 

sought a return of all the seized property, as well as damages for 

the alleged due process violations. 

The magistrate judge issued a report in June 1994 

recommending that the Hobbses' requests for relief be denied. The 

magistrate judge determined that the court no longer had in rem 

jurisdiction over the subject property, which it found had been 

forfeited and disposed of according to law. Therefore, the 

magistrate judge concluded, the court could not entertain the 

Hobbses' request for a return of 

judge further concluded that 

the 

the 

property. The 

court should not 

magistrate 

exercise 

equitable jurisdiction over the Hobbses' motions, because the 

opportunity to assert their claims in the forfeiture action gave 

them an adequate remedy at law. 

The district court reviewed the record de novo and, after 

concluding that the Hobbses were properly served with the 

forfeiture complaint and that'probable cause existed to forfeit 

the subject property, the court determined that the Hobbses should 

not be permitted to file late claims to the property. The court 

then adopted the magistrate's report and recommendation and denied 

the Hobbses' requests for relief. This appeal followed. 

3 

Appellate Case: 94-5192 Document: 01019287504 Date Filed: 01/17/1996 Page: 3 
I. 

As an initial matter, we must address the government's motion 

to dismiss the appeal. The government contends that the district 

court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the in 

rem proceeding, and that this determination is fatal to our 

jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The district court, however, did 

not determine that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 

action. To the contrary, the court clearly had subject matter 

over the forfeiture action pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 1345 (civil 

suits commenced by United States) and § 1355 (forfeiture under an 

Act of Congress). We, in turn, have jurisdiction over the appeal 

from the district court's final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We proceed, then, to the waiver issue. 

The government 

appellate arguments 

objections to the 

II. 

contends that 

by failing to 

the Hobbses waived all their 

file sufficiently specific 

magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 

Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that when 

a magistrate judge has issued a report and recommendation on a 

dispositive pretrial matter, ·a party objecting to the 

recommendation has ten days after being served with the report and 

recommendation to 11 serve and file specific, written objections to 

the proposed findings and reconunendations.n The rule further 

directs the district judge to 

4 

Appellate Case: 94-5192 Document: 01019287504 Date Filed: 01/17/1996 Page: 4 
make a de novo detenmination upon the record, or after 

additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate 

judge's disposition to which specific written objection 

has been made in accordance with this rule. The 

district judge may accept, reject, or modify the 

recommended decision, receive further evidence, or 

recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with 

instructions. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see also 28 u.s.c. § 636(bl (1). 

"The filing of objections to a magistrate's report enables 

the district judge to focus attention on those issues--factual and 

legal--that are at the heart of the parties' dispute, 11 Thomas v. 

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985), and gives the district court an 

opportunity "to correct any errors immediately," united States v. 

Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 950 (6th Cir. 1981); see also Lewry y. Town 

of Standish, 984 F.2d 25, 27 (1st Cir. 1993). Thus, the filing of 

objections advances the interests that underlie the Magistrate's 

Act, including judicial efficiency. See Niehaus v. Kansas Bar 

Ass'n, 793 F.2d 1159, 1165 (lOth Cir. 1986) (holding that party's 

failure to file timely objections to magistrate judge's ruling 

11 frustrated the policy behind the Magistrate's Act, i.e., to 

relieve courts of unnecessary work and to improve access to the 

courts"); accord Walters, 638 F.2d at 949 ( 11 [T]he fundamental 

congressional policy underlying the Magistrate's Act [is] to 

improve access to the federal courts and aid the efficient 

administration of justice • . . . n) • 

To further advance the policies behind the Magistrate's Act, 

we, like numerous other circuits, have adopted 11 a firm waiver 

rule" that 11 provides that the failure to make timely objections to 

the magistrate's findings or recommendations waives appellate 

5 

Appellate Case: 94-5192 Document: 01019287504 Date Filed: 01/17/1996 Page: 5 
review of both factual and legal questions." Moore v. United 

States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (lOth Cir. 1991); accord Keating v. 

Secretary of Health & Human Serve., 848 F.2d 271, 275 (1st Cir. 

1988); Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 

(7th Cir. 1986); United States y. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 93-94 

(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 u.s. 1208 {1984); Mccarthy v. 

Manson, 714 F.2d 234, 237-38 (2d Cir. 1983); Walters, 638 F.2d at 

949-50; se§ also Britt y, Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist,, 708 F.2d 

452, 454-55 (9th Cir. 1983) (waiver of factual issues only); 

Nettles y, wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 409-10 (5th Cir. Unit B 

1982) (en bane) (same) . 

In Thomas y. Arn, the Supreme Court approved the Sixth 

Circuit's adoption of a waiver rule, reasoning as follows:· 

The Sixth Circuit's rule, by precluding appellate review 

of any issue not contained in objections, preVents a 

litigant from 11 sandbagging" the district judge by 

failing to object and then appealing. Absent such a 

rule, any issue before the magistrate would be a proper 

subject for appellate review. This would either force 

the court of appeals to consider claims that were never 

reviewed by the district court, or force the district 

court to review every issue in every case, no matter how 

thorough the magistrate's analysis and even if both 

parties were satisfied with the magistrate's report. 

Either result would be an inefficient use of judicial 

resources. In short, 11 [t]he same rationale that 

prevents a party from raising an issue before a circuit 

court of appeals that was not raised before the district 

court applies here. rf United States v. Schronce, 727 

F.2d 91,. 94 (CA4) (footnote omitted), cert. d§nied, 467 

u.s 0 1208 (1984) 0 

474 u.s. at 147-48 (footnote omitted). 

Here, the ·magistrate judge's report and recommendation 

informed the parties that they had eleven days from the date of 

the order to file 11 objections with supporting brief 11 and that the 

6 

Appellate Case: 94-5192 Document: 01019287504 Date Filed: 01/17/1996 Page: 6 
11 [f]ailure to object within that time period will result in waiver 

of the right to appeal from a judgment of the district court based 

upon the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge." 

R. Vol. I, Doc. 49 at 6-7. Within the time specified, Mary Kay, 

J. Bryant, and Ethel Mae Hobbs filed a motion for reconsideration, 

as did Gary Hobbs. The former consisted of only two sentences 

asking that the district court reconsider the magistrate's report 

and recommendation based on "the motions, exhibits, testimony[,] 

briefs, and arguments" that the Hobbses had submitted to the 

court. Id., Doc. 51. Gary Hobbs's motion was equally general, 

except it also pointed out a conflict in the evidence as to the 

exact date of service of the forfeiture complaint on his parents. 

In its order adopting the magistrate judge's report and 

recommendation, the district court noted that appellants' 

respective motions for reconsideration were not the proper 

procedure for challenging the magistrate judge's recommendation. 

The court determined, however, that because "extensive pleadings 

have been filed in this case, 11 it would sua sponte conduct a de 

novo review of the pleadings. Id., Doc. 57 at 2. 

On appeal, the government argues that the general objections 

filed by appellants are not sufficient to avoid application of our 

waiver rule. Although we have not previously addressed whether a 

general objection is sufficient, a number of other circuits have 

addressed the issue and have concluded that a· general objection 

will not avoid application of the waiver rule. See, e.g., Howard 

v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508-09 (6th 

Cir. 1991); Lockert v: Faylkner, 843 F.2d 1015, 1019 (?th Cir. 

7 

Appellate Case: 94-5192 Document: 01019287504 Date Filed: 01/17/1996 Page: 7 
1988); Goney y, Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6-7 (3d Cir. 1984); Nettles, 

677 F.2d at 410 & n.8. 

We agree with these holdings of our sister circuits, because 

only an objection that is sufficiently specific to focus the 

district court's attention on the factual and legal issues that 

are truly in dispute will advance the policies behind the 

Magistrate's Act that led us to adopt a waiver rule in the first 

instance. Therefore, we hold that a party's objections to the 

magistrate judge's report and recommendation must be both timely 

and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the 

district court or for appellate review. With one exception,2 the 

objections filed by appellants here were not sufficiently specific 

to preserve any issue for appellate review. ~ Lockert, 843 F.2d 

at 1019 ( 11 Just as a complaint stating only 'I complain' states no 

claim, an objection stating only 'I object' preserves no issue for 

review. 11 ). 

We have held, however, that 11 [t]he waiver rule as a 

procedural bar need not be applied when the interests of justice 

so dictate. n Moore, 950 F. 2d at 659. After reviewing the record, 

we conclude that, because application of the waiver rule advances 

the important policies that underlie it, the district court's 

2 Gary Hobbs's motion for reconsideration did raise one 

specific objection to the magistrate judge's findings, which 

related to the date of service of the arrest warrant and 

forfeiture complaint on his parents. While the date of service 

may be relevant to the claims of J. Bryant and Ethel Mae Hobbs, it 

has no bearing on the claims of Gary Hobbs, who, as a pro se 

litigant, can represent only himself. Therefore, because only 

Gary Hobbs raised this issue before the district judge and the 

issue is not relevant to any of his claims, we need not address 

it. 

B 

Appellate Case: 94-5192 Document: 01019287504 Date Filed: 01/17/1996 Page: 8 
decision to conduct a de novo review, sua sponte, does not warrant 

lifting the bar of appellate review under the circumstances 

presented here. See Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813, 814-15 (6th 

Cir. 1984), aff'd, 474 u.s. 140 (1985) (deeming appellate arguments 

waived for failure to object to magistrate judge's report and 

recommendation even though district court, sua sponte, reviewed 

record de novo); ~United States v. B~ant, 5 F.3d 474, 476 

(lOth Cir. 1993} (deeming issue that should have been raised before 

trial waived under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12{f) due to untimeliness and 

failure to show cause even though district court chose to address 

issue on merits); United States v. Baker, 638 F.2d 198, 202 & n.s 

(lOth Cir. 1980} (same}. Sut see Thomas, 474 u.s. at 158 (Stevens, 

J., dissenting) (arguing that waiver rule should not apply 11 [w]hen 

the district court elects to exercise its power to review a 

magistrate's report de novo and renders an opinion resolving an 

issue on the merits"). 

Accordingly, we hold that appellants waived appellate review 

by failing to file specific objections to the magistrate judge's 

report and recommendation. The judgment of the United States 

District Court ·for the Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED, 

and all outstanding motions are DENIED. 

9 

Appellate Case: 94-5192 Document: 01019287504 Date Filed: 01/17/1996 Page: 9