United States v. 2121 East 30th Street
- Decided
- January 17, 1996
- Docket
- No. 94-5192
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,532 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that an objection must enable the district judge to focus attention on the issues at the heart of the dispute — Pittman v. Long (2025)
- holding that an objection must be sufficient to alert the Court to the factual and legal issues actually in dispute to avoid the objection’s waiver — Jones v. Azar (2020)
- holding that objections which are vague and general or that merely rehash arguments already considered do not preserve issues for de novo review — (untitled) (2026)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
WESLEY E. BROWN, Senior District Judge.
This case, which arises out of a civil forfeiture action, requires us to consider whether a general objection to a magistrate’s report and recommendation will suffice to preserve a party’s challenges to that report for appeal. We conclude that it will not.[1]
Appellant Gary Hobbs, who is an attorney, allegedly used proceeds from his criminal activities to purchase a home and a car, which were the subject of a civil forfeiture action. The house was titled in the name of Gary and his wife, Mary Kay Hobbs, and the ear was titled in the names of Gary’s parents, J. Bryant and Ethel Mae Hobbs. All four of the Hobbses were personally served with the arrest warrant and complaint in the forfeiture action, and none of them filed a claim or otherwise appeared in the action. The district court entered a judgment of forfeiture as to the house, its contents, and the car, in December 1990.
Statutes cited
Cite this
United States v. 2121 East 30th Street, 73 F.3d 1057 (1996)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.