Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States of America v. the Premises and Real Property

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


September 13, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
THE PREMISES AND REAL PROPERTY WITH ALL BUILDINGS, APPURTENANCES, AND IMPROVEMENTS, LOCATED AT 118 KELLER STREET, ROCHESTER, NEW YORK, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael A. Telesca United States District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

The United States of America filed this in rem civil foreclosure action of the premises and real property located at 118 Keller Street, Rochester, New York on February 7, 2007. (Docket No. 1.) Thereafter, claimant David P. Anderson filed a Claim for Forfeiture, objecting to the foreclosure action and an Answer to the Complaint. (Docket Nos. 4, 6.) This Court then referred the case to Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 on July 2, 2007. (Docket No. 7.)

On February 4, 2011, the government filed the instant Motion to Strike Mr. Anderson's Claim and Answer contending that Mr. Anderson lacked standing to contest the foreclosure action because he no longer has any interest in the subject property. (Docket No. 16.) The motion was referred to Judge Payson for a Report and Recommendation on February 8, 2011. (Docket No. 17.) Mr. Anderson, through his attorney, Peter J. Pullano, Esq., responded to the motion and indicated that he no longer owned the subject property. (Docket No. 20). Judge Payson then issued her Report and Recommendation on August 22, 2011, recommending that this Court grant the government's motion to strike Mr. Anderson's Claim and Answer. (Docket No. 22.) No objections have been filed to Judge Payson's Report and Recommendation.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), after the filing of a Report and Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations. After such filing, [a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). H a v i n g r e v i e w e d t h e R e p o r t a n d Recommendation and no objections having been filed, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the Report and Recommendation is hereby adopted in its entirety; and the government's Motion to Strike claimant David P. Anderson's Claim for Forfeiture and Answer, is hereby granted in its entirety.

ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SO ORDERED.

Michael A. Telesca

20110913

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.