Acosta

MEMORANDUM **

Conrado Acosta appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action for return of currency seized. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Stock W. Corp. v. Taylor, 964 F.2d 912, 917 (9th Cir.1992) (en banc). Because Acosta failed to comply with the administrative prerequisites to challenge a forfeiture, the district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. See 19 U.S.C. § 1609 ; cf. United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 875 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that, because administrative forfeiture proceedings provided adequate legal remedy, appellant who received notice but failed to file a timely claim was barred under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure from filing a Rule 41(e) motion to challenge the civil forfeiture); accord Linarez v. United States Dept. of Justice, 2 F.3d 208 , 213 (7th Cir.1993) (affirming dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff failed to file a timely claim of ownership in a civil administrative forfeiture…