Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. $29,000, also known as Elita Crossland, also known as Thomas Scott Crossland, in United States Currency; Defendant, Scott Crossland, also known as Thomas Scott Crossland, Claimant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-09-15
Citations: 75 F. App'x 558
Docket Number: No. 03-1210
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. $29,000, also known as Elita Crossland, also known as Thomas Scott Crossland, in United States Currency; Defendant, Scott Crossland, also known as Thomas Scott Crossland, Claimant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 75
Pages: 558–559

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. $29,000, also known as Elita Crossland, also known as Thomas Scott Crossland, in United States Currency; Defendant, Scott Crossland, also known as Thomas Scott Crossland, Claimant-Appellant.
No. 03-1210.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 2, 2003.
Decided Sept. 15, 2003.
Matthew Wood Fleming, David R. Ferguson, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Smith, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Scott Crossland, pro se, Fort Worth, TX, for Claimant-Appellant.
Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Scott Crossland appeals from the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in Crossland's civil forfeiture action, contending there was evidence in the record to establish the $29,000 at issue represented proceeds from legitimate business ventures, the district court wrongly denied his motion to stay the summary judgment motion, and the forfeiture action was untimely. After careful review, we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a stay, because Cross-land did not identify the discovery he was lacking and how a continuance would have enabled him to obtain needed discovery. See Alexander v. Pathfinder, Inc., 189 F.3d 735, 744 (8th Cir.1999). We also conclude summary judgment was proper because the government presented unrebutted evidence of probable cause, and Crossland failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the money represented proceeds from a legitimate business. See United States v. Premises Known as 7725 Unity Ave. N., Brooklyn Park, Minn., 294 F.3d 954, 958 (8th Cir.2002). Finally, the forfeiture action was timely filed. See United States v. Twenty-Seven Parcels of Real Prop. Located in Sikeston, Mo., 236 F.3d 438, 440 (8th Cir.2001) (statute of limitations).
Accordingly, we affirm.
The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.