United States of America v. Manni, No. 2:2021mc51440 - Document 11 (E.D. Mich. 2022)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER Adopting 10 Report and Recommendation Granting 3 Motion to Dismiss and Dismissing 1 Petition - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States of America v. Manni Doc. 11 Case 2:21-mc-51440-NGE-DRG ECF No. 11, PageID.163 Filed 07/07/22 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 21-mc-51440 Criminal No. 19-cr-20389 v. FRANK MANNI, Jr., Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds Magistrate Judge David R. Grand Defendant, and RADA MANNI, Interested Party. _________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S JUNE 21, 2022 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [10] In Criminal Case No. 19-20389, Defendant Frank Manni, Jr. pled guilty to transporting stolen goods, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314, and agreed “to forfeit to the United States any and all property, real or personal, which constitutes proceeds obtained or derived, directly or indirectly, from the scheme to transport stolen goods . . .” (19-30389, ECF No. 60, PageID.291.) On November 22, 2021, Petitioner Rada Manni commenced this miscellaneous action by filing a “Petition and Assertion of Interest in [the Subject Property].” (ECF No. 1.) The United States subsequently moved to dismiss Petitioner’s petition. (ECF No. 3.) Both the petition and the United States’ motion were referred to United States Magistrate Judge David R. Grand and on June 17, 2022, he heard oral argument. Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:21-mc-51440-NGE-DRG ECF No. 11, PageID.164 Filed 07/07/22 Page 2 of 2 Presently before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s June 21, 2022 report and recommendation. (ECF No. 10.) The Magistrate Judge recommends granting the United States’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 3) and dismissing Petitioner’s Petition (ECF No. 1). The Court is fully advised in the premises and has reviewed the record and the pleadings. Neither party has filed objections. “[T]he failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report[] releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter.” See Hall v. Rawal, No. 09-10933, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120541, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2012) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)). The Court nevertheless agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. The Court, therefore, ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 10); GRANTS the United States’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 3) and DISMISSES Petitioner’s petition (ECF No. 1.) SO ORDERED. s/Nancy G. Edmunds Nancy G. Edmunds United States District Judge Dated: July 7, 2022 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on July 7, 2022, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Lisa Bartlett Case Manager
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
