1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 At hearing on the government’s motion, its counsel indicated it was withdrawing the

request for a certificate of reasonable cause under 24 U.S.C. § 2465 included in its original

application filed May 13, 2005. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) No. Civ S-04-1037 LKK KJM

)

Plaintiff, )

 ) 

v. )

) 

APPROXIMATELY $11,690.00 IN ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

U.S. CURRENCY, ) 

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

This matter came on for hearing before the undersigned on June 15, 2005, on

plaintiff United States’ ex parte Motion for Default Judgment and for Final Judgment of

Forfeiture. Assistant U.S. Attorney Courtney J. Linn appeared for plaintiff United States. There

was no appearance by or on behalf of any other person or entity claiming an interest in defendant

currency to oppose plaintiff’s motion. Based on plaintiff’s motion and the files and records of

the court, THE COURT FINDS as follows:

This action arose out of a Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem filed May 27,

2004.

Plaintiff United States of America has moved this Court, under Local Rule A-540,

for entry of default judgment of forfeiture1 against the following potential claimants: Francis G.

Case 2:04-cv-01037-LKK -KJM Document 14 Filed 06/17/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 Dennis Wheeler was personally served with process. Francis Orr was served by virtue

of substituted service on her husband, which satisfies the requirements of service set forth in

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e), and the requirement that service be “reasonably calculated,

under all the circumstances, to apprise [an] interested part[y] of the pendency of the action and

afford [her] an opportunity to present [] objections.” See Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S.

161, 168 (2002).

2

Orr and Dennis R. Wheeler.

Plaintiff has shown that a complaint for forfeiture was filed; that a reasonable

basis in fact exists for the forfeiture of the defendant currency; that potential claimants were 

served2 with process; that any and all other unknown potential claimants have been served by

publication; and that grounds exist for entry of a final judgment of forfeiture.

Potential claimants Francis G. Orr and Dennis R. Wheeler failed to file a claim to

the defendant currency and failed to file an answer to the complaint under Rule C(6) of the

Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims. 

On December 8, 2004, as provided by Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, a Clerk's Entry of Default was filed against Francis G. Orr and Dennis R. Wheeler.

Therefore, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows:

1. That Francis G. Orr and Dennis R. Wheeler be held in default;

2. That plaintiff's motion for default judgment of forfeiture be granted;

3. That a judgment by default be entered against any right, title or interest of

Francis G. Orr and Dennis R. Wheeler in the defendant currency; 

4. That a final judgment be entered, forfeiting all right, title and interest in the

defendant currency to the United States of America, to be disposed of according to law, including

all right, title and interest of Francis G. Orr and Dennis R. Wheeler; 

5. That counsel for the government shall submit a proposed form of Final

Judgment of Forfeiture to the District Judge within the twenty day objection period provided for

below; and 

6. That a Final Judgment of Forfeiture be entered upon adoption of these findings

and recommendations.

Case 2:04-cv-01037-LKK -KJM Document 14 Filed 06/17/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to objections shall be filed within five days from

the filing of the objections addressed by the reply. The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: June 16, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01037-LKK -KJM Document 14 Filed 06/17/05 Page 3 of 3