Opinion
1:15CV5061:15CV1521:15MJ321:15MJ331:15MJ341:15MJ351:15MJ361:15MJ371:15MJ381:15MJ401:15MJ411:15MJ421:15MJ431:15MJ441:15MJ451:15MJ491:15MJ501:15MJ511:15MJ521:15MJ531:15MJ541:15MJ551:15MJ561:15MJ571:15MJ581:15MJ591:15MJ601:15MJ611:15MJ621:15MJ631:15MJ641:15MJ651:15MJ661:15MJ671:15MJ681:15MJ691:15MJ701:15MJ711:15MJ721:15MJ731:15MJ741:15MJ751:15MJ761:15MJ771:15MJ781:15MJ791:15MJ801:15MJ811:15MJ821:15MJ831:15MJ841:15MJ85
03-31-2017
ORDER
This matter is before this court for review of the Recommendation filed on January 18, 2017, by the Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (Doc. 76.) In the Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Claimants' Motions for the Return of Seized Property in 1:15MJ32 to 1:15MJ38, 1:15MJ40 to 1:15MJ45, and 1:15MJ49 through 1:15MJ85 be denied and that Claimants' Motions to Dismiss in 1:15CV152 (Doc. 10) and 1:15CV506 (Doc. 9) be denied. The Recommendation was served on the parties to these actions on January 19, 2017. Claimants filed objections within the time limit prescribed by Section 636. Plaintiff filed a response to Claimants' objections.
This court is required to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [Magistrate Judge's] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the [M]agistrate [J]udge. . . . [O]r recommit the matter to the [M]agistrate [J]udge with instructions." Id.
This court reads the objections to extend to the order entered by the Magistrate Judge granting the motion to stay and denying the motion to lift stay (Doc. 76 at 30). These are non-dispositive matters and, as a result, this court's review is under a "clearly erroneous" standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
The court has appropriately reviewed Claimants' objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. This court has made a de novo determination which is in accord with the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation and finds the objections do not change the substance of the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. This court therefore adopts the Recommendation.
The court notes that Claimants subsequently filed Motions to Supplement the Objections in each of these cases. Their request will be allowed to the extent that the additional objections will be considered. However, the court concludes that even if the additional objections are considered, the analysis and conclusion remain the same.
Nevertheless, this court has had the opportunity to review the status report and the ex parte attachment (Docs. 79, 80), both of which were filed following entry of the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. While the Magistrate Judge's order is eminently reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances, this court finds in light of the recent filings that the order should be modified to impose a stay for a definite period of time rather than the process in place, requiring an updated status report and basis for continuing the stay as previously ordered.
The civil forfeiture action stayed by the Magistrate Judge's order is extensive, involving what appear to be substantial personal and business assets. This criminal investigation has apparently been pending since at least sometime during 2014 when the Medicaid Investigations Division began its investigation. (See Recommendation (Doc. 76) at 8.) The forfeitures began in February 2015 when seizure warrants were issued. (See id. at 10.) As described by another district court in United States v. $307,970.00 in U.S. Currency, "the status of the criminal investigation is fluid, and no charging decision ha[s] been made. Under such circumstances, an indefinite stay might adversely affect claimants' due process rights." 156 F. Supp. 3d 708, 727 (E.D.N.C. 2016). As a result, "the stay, as requested, is too indefinite. See, e.g., Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 257 (1936) ('The stay is immoderate and hence unlawful unless so framed in its inception that its force will be spent within reasonable limits, so far at least as they are susceptible to prevision and description.')." United States v. $307,970.00, 156 F. Supp. 3d at 726-27. This court therefore modifies the terms of the stay to limit the period of the stay for approximately 120 days, until August 1, 2017. At the conclusion of that time, the parties will meet, confer, and provide the court with a joint status report for moving forward with the case, on or before July 15, 2017. Should the government seek a continued stay of this case, any motion to that effect shall be filed no later than July 1, 2017. Claimants may file a response on or before July 15, 2017. No reply will be permitted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Doc. 76) is ADOPTED except as modified herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Claimants' Motions and Supplemental Motions for the Return of Seized Property in 1:15MJ32 to 1:15MJ38, 1:15MJ40 to 1:15MJ45, and 1:15MJ49 through 1:15MJ85 are DENIED and that Claimants' Motions to Dismiss in 1:15CV152 (Doc. 10) and 1:15CV506 (Doc. 9) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's order granting the stay is AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED HEREIN.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Claimants' Motions to Supplement their Objections to the Order and Recommendation are GRANTED to the extent that the additional objections have been considered.
This the 31st day of March, 2017.
/s/_________
United States District Judge