United States of America v. Approximately $11,850 in U.S. Currency Seized by Chesapeake Police on March 13, 2024

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil No. 2:25cv583 APPROXIMATELY $11,850 IN U.S. CURRENCY SEIZED BY CHESA- PEAKE POLICE ON MARCH 13, 2024,

Defendant in Rem.

FINAL ORDER Before the Court is a Motion for Entry of Default Judgment (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiff United States of America (“Plaintiff” or the “United States”). Mot., ECF No. 9. Therein, the United States seeks default judgment against the defendant, ap- proximately $11,850.00 in United States Currency seized by Chesapeake Police on March 13, 2024 (“the defendant property”). Id. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Eastern District of Virginia Local Civil Rule 72, and by order of reference dated May 5, 2026, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Robert J. Krask for a report and recommendation (“R&R”). Order, ECF No. 10. On July 24, 2026, Judge Krask filed an R&R wherein he recom- mended that the Motion be granted, judgment be entered in favor of the United States against the defendant property, and an Order of Forfeiture be entered extinguishing any and all rights and interests that anyone may have in the defendant property and forfeiting the defendant property to the United States, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). R&R, ECF No. 11.

By copy of the R&R, each party was advised of the right to file written objec- tions to the findings and recommendations made by Judge Krask within 14 days. Id. at 11. Neither party filed any objections. The Motion is therefore ripe for adjudication. When a magistrate judge’s disposition has been properly objected to, the district judge must make de novo findings with respect to the portions objected to. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, “when no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself

that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommen- dation.” Id. (advisory committee’s note on rules—1983).1 The Court has reviewed the Motion, the R&R, the record, and the governing law, and finds no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS and ADJUDGES as follows: 1. The R&R (ECF No. 11) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED.

3. It is hereby ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of the United States against the defendant property. An Order of Forfeiture will be entered as a

1 “The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the par- ties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review.” Berry v. Hunt, 13 F. App’x 148, 149 (4th Cir. 2001). As the United States and the defendant property were so warned, see R&R at 12, ECF No. 11, and did not file objections, appellate review of this Order has been waived. separate order. The Clerk is DIRECTED to please provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.

IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Arenda L. Wright Allen Senior United States District Judge August 17, 2026 Norfolk, Virginia