United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2677

___________ Kevin L. Gaten, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Richard E. Hudson, Police Detective; * Appeal from the United States John Doe, Police Chief, * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Appellees, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Samuel J. Hais, St. Louis County * Judge; Janet Reno, US Attorney * General; John P. Sutton, Spec. Agent * in Charge, Drug Enforcement * Agency, * * Defendants. *

___________ Submitted: December 30, 1997 Filed: April 6, 1998

___________Althoug h the plaintiff is identified in the district court and Eighth Circui t 1 captions as “Gaten,” he has consistently referred to himself as “Gaten-Bey.” TheHonorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern 2 District of Missouri. TheHonorable Mary Ann L. Medler, United States Magistrate Judge for th e 3 Eastern Dis trict of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition b y consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). -2- Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, an d MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In 1991, a fter St. Louis police officers seized $1,442 in currency and othe r personal property from Kevin L. Gaten-Bey, the curre ncy was transferred to the Drug 1 Enforcement Administration (DEA). The DEA pu blished notice of the seizure in USA Today for three weeks and sent notice of the seizure by certified mail to Mr. Gaten

Bey & s home; Mr. Gaten-Beydid not file a claim; and the currency was forfeited to the federal government pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881.
In 1995, M r. Gaten-Bey filed this action, complaining that the original searc h warrant was issued without probable cause and based upon a false affidavit, and that he received no response to his inquiries regarding his seized property. The distric t court dismissed the claims against Judge Samuel Hais prior to service, pursuant to 28 2 U.S.C. § 1 915(d) (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (Wes t Supp. 1997)). The district court later denied Mr. Ga ten-Bey & s motion for appointment 3 of counsel; granted Attorney General Janet Reno and DEA Agent John Sutton summary ju dgment; and, finding Mr. Gaten-Bey & s subsequent pleadings clarified that he wa s seeking recovery of his forfeited $1,442 i n currency, dismissed the action as to Officer Richard Hudson and Police Chief “John Doe.” Mr. Gaten-Bey appeals.-3-

We conclude summary judgment was proper as to Attorney General Reno and Agent Sutton. Contrary to Mr. Gaten-Bey & s argument, the DEA was permitted t o rece ivethe currency without a court order, see Madewell v. Downs , 68 F.3d 1030 , 1037-45 (8th Cir. 1995), and the DEA provided him adequate notice prior to th e forfeiture, see1 9 U.S.C. § 1607(a) (requiring written notice to interested parties); 21 C.F.R

. § 1316.75(a) (1997) (requiring newspaper publication); United States v

. Woodall , 12 F.3d 791, 794-95 (8th Cir. 1 993) (adequacy of notice is measured at time notice is sent; in forf

eiture action, defenses such as lack of probable cause are waived if no claim is filed after adequate notice). After carefully reviewing the record, we agree with the distric t court that Mr. Gaten-Bey & s claims against Officer Hudson and Police Chief “Doe” essentially sought release of the forfeited currency. Such a challenge to the forfeiture is foreclosed by Mr. Gaten-Bey & s failure to respond after proper notice in the forfeiture proceeding. See 19 U.S.C. § 1609(b) (administrative forfeiture ha s force and effe ct of “final decree and order” of judicial forfeiture); 21 U.S.C. § 881(h) (alltitle in forfeited property vests in United States as of date of commission of ac t giving rise to forfeiture).
We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. GatenBey & s motion for appointment of counsel. See Plummer v. Grimes , 87 F.3d 1032, 1033 (8th Ci r. 1996). His contention that he was entitled to prospective declaratory o r injunctive relief against Judge Hais is unsupported. We decline to address Mr. GatenBey & s substantive due

process claim raised for the first time on appeal. See Renfro v. Swift Eckrich, Inc. , 53 F.3d 1460, 1464 (8th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.-4-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.