MEMORANDUM **

Jesus Madrigal appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) for return of property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Madrigal contends that he is entitled to the return of $4,723.86 seized by the government and forfeited pursuant to a declaration of nonjudicial civil forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of federal forfeiture law and its findings of fact for clear error. See United States v. Alcaraz-Garcia, 79 F.3d 769, 772 (9th Cir. 1996). Because the funds were subject to a civil property forfeiture, Rule 41(g) does not provide a basis to challenge the government’s action. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 1(a)(5)(B); United States v. Fitzen, 80 F.3d 387, 389 (9th Cir. 1996).

In the alternative, the district court construed Madrigal’s motion as a claim under the Civil Assets Forfeiture Reform Act and concluded that Madrigal was not entitled to relief because he had failed to file a valid and timely claim under the statute. We agree. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(2)(B), (C)(iii).

AFFIRMED.