From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kairis v. U.S.

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Sep 20, 2006
9:02-CV-1337 (TJM/RFT) (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 20, 2006)

Opinion

9:02-CV-1337 (TJM/RFT).

September 20, 2006


DECISION ORDER


This pro se motion for the return of property was referred to the Hon. Randolph F. Treece, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.4.

No objections to the Report-Recommendation and Order dated September 5, 2006 have been filed. Furthermore, after examining the record, this Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Report-Recommendation for the reasons stated therein.

It is therefore

ORDERED that the motion to set aside the administrative forfeiture be granted and the DEA serve proper notice upon petitioner and allow for filing of a new claim, which, in accordance with the prisoner mailbox rule, shall be deemed filed if and when petitioner gives such claim to prison officials.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Kairis v. U.S.

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Sep 20, 2006
9:02-CV-1337 (TJM/RFT) (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 20, 2006)
Case details for

Kairis v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:PAUL KAIRIS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, N.D. New York

Date published: Sep 20, 2006

Citations

9:02-CV-1337 (TJM/RFT) (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 20, 2006)

Citing Cases

United States v. Lestrick

A federal court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of an administrative forfeiture decision except in…

Mikhaylov v. United States

See Dusenbery, 534 U.S. at 169 & n. 4, 122 S.Ct. 694 (collecting cases). In this case, the DEA sent a written…