United States of America v. 7046 PARK VISTA ROAD, Englewood, Montgomery County, Ohio; BRIAN GILLINGHAM

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 09a0581n.06
No. 08-4008
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
7046 PARK VISTA ROAD, Englewood,
Montgomery County, Ohio; BRIAN
GILLINGHAM,
Defendants-Appellants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
C O U R T F O R T H E
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
OHIO
OPINION
BEFORE: COLE, CLAY, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
COLE, Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant Brian Gillingham appeals the summary
judgment of the district court in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee United States of America, ordering
forfeiture in rem of certain real property under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2253(a)(3) and 2254(a)(2).
Gillingham alleges that the district court’s summary judgment should be reversed because: (1)
forfeiture is improper absent a federal conviction and Gillingham was convicted only in Ohio
state court of seven counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor under Ohio Revised Code
§§ 2907.321(A)(2) & (A)(5), one count of possession of criminal tools under Ohio Revised Code
§ 2923.24(A), and one count of gross sexual imposition under Ohio Revised Code §
2907.05(A)(4); (2) a genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether Gillingham used his
home to commit the offenses in question; and (3) forfeiture of the real property is an “excessive
fine” in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Gillingham also asserts that the district court

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
abused its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance of his trial and a related motion to
withdraw a brief filed by counsel.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Sullivan v. Or. Ford, Inc., 559 F.3d
594 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Miller v. Admin. Office of the Courts, 448 F.3d 887, 893 (6th Cir.
2006)). The moving party is entitled to summary judgment “if the pleadings, the discovery and
disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c)(2); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). We view factual
evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences
in that party’s favor. See Henderson v. Walled Lake Consol. Sch., 469 F.3d 479, 487 (6th Cir.
2006). We review a district court’s decision to deny a motion for a continuance for an abuse of
discretion. United States v. King, 127 F.3d 483, 486 (6th Cir. 1997); United States v. Gallo, 763
F.2d 1504, 1523 (6th Cir. 1985).
We have carefully considered the parties’ briefs, the applicable law, and the district
court’s order granting summary judgment to the Government and denying Gillingham’s request
for a continuance and to withdraw counsel’s brief. We agree with the district court’s conclusion
that no genuine issues of material fact exist and that the Government is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law on its forfeiture claim. Further, we agree that, as to his two motions, Gillingham
offers no support for his argument that the court’s orders constituted an “unreasoning and
arbitrary insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for delay,” King, 127
F.3d at 486-87, in violation of any due process rights. Because the district court’s decision is
thorough and well-reasoned, see United States v. 7046 Park Vista, 537 F. Supp. 2d 929 (S.D.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
Ohio 2008), we find no reason to expand on its analysis. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the
district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.

-- 3 of 3 --