Rene Oswald COBAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, Asset Forfeiture Section (CCF), Defendant-Appellee, 600 F. App'x 31

SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff Rene Oswald Cobar, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s March 31, 2014 judgment dismissing his action challenging the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (“DEA”) administrative forfeiture of $209,775 seized on Cobar’s person during his 2004 arrest. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, including legal" conclusions concerning the court’s “interpretation and application of a statute of limitations.” City of Pontiac Gen. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. MBIA, Inc., 637 F.3d 169, 173 (2d Cir.2011). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

Although all allegations contained iri the complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. While we review de novo a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, we “review the district court’s ruling on equitable tolling for abuse of discretion.” Alli-Balogun v. United States, 281 F.3d 362, 367-68 (2d Cir.2002).

Upon de novo review of the record and relevant law, we conclude that the District Court properly dismissed Cobar’s action, substantially for the reasons stated in its thorough March 31, 2014 decision — namely, Cobar’s action was barred by the relevant statute of limitations. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)(3) (“A motion [to set aside an administrative forfeiture] may be filed not later than 5 years after the date of final publication of notice of seizure of the property.”). The record further reveals that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cobar equitable tolling.

CONCLUSION We have considered all of the arguments raised by Cobar on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the District Court’s March 31, 2014 judgment.