Charles Gavin, federal prisoner # 10867-042, appeals from the denial of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4) motion seeking to void the civil forfeiture of $2,254 in United States currency pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). We review the district court’s ruling on a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4) motion de novo. Carter v. Fenner, 136 F.3d 1000, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998).

Gavin argues pursuant to United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 114 S.Ct. 492, 126 L.Ed.2d 490 (1993), that he was denied the predepriva *617 tion safeguards of notice and a hearing in violation of his due process rights.

Good is inapposite, however, because it dealt only with the seizure of real property. 510 U.S. at 53, 114 S.Ct. 492; of. Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 679, 94 S.Ct. 2080, 40 L.Ed.2d 452 (1974). The civil forfeiture of currency is authorized by 19 U.S.C. § 1607(a). Kadonsky v. United States, 216 F.3d 499, 503 (5th Cir. 2000). The record reveals that the Government satisfied the notice requirements of § 1607(a) when it published notification of the forfeiture in the local newspaper and personally served Gavin with the complaint for forfeiture. Gavin’s allegation that the record was devoid of such evidence is unsubstantiated.

AFFIRMED.