E.D.Mich.: Rule 41(g) motion denied for failure to show entitlement to seized property

For Rule 41(g) motion to return property: “Flemming has failed to prove that he is a ‘person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure.’ In his motion, Flemming does not challenge the legality of the search and seizure in question. Flemming has also failed to prove that he is ‘lawfully entitled to possess the property,’ and does not make any showing as to why the plans should be returned to him rather than to Carlos Powell, from whom the plans were seized.” United States v. Flemming, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195523 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 29, 2017).