U.S. 545, 570 n. 21, 103 S.Ct. 3201, 77 L.Ed.2d 837 (1983). Most circuits to have considered the issue have held that a stay is always preferable because it may likely produce the same practical result as a dismissal while still leaving the docket open in case loose ends remain at the conclusion of the state proceedings. See Moorer v. Demopolis Waterworks & Sewer Bd., 374 F.3d 994, 998 (11th Cir.2004); CIGNA Healthcare of St. Louis, Inc. v. Kaiser, 294 F.3d 849, 851-52 (7th Cir.2002); Mahaffey v. Bechtel Assoc. Prof'l Corp., D.C., 699 F.2d 545, 546-47 (D.C.Cir. 1983) (per curiam); see also Lops v. Lops, 140 F.3d 927, 960 n. 24 (11th Cir.1998) (Kravitch, J., dissenting); but see Cox v. Planning Dist. I Cmty. Mental Health & Mental Retardation Servs. Bd., 669 F.2d 940, 943 (4th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). There is no need to decide this issue
holding that dismissal is appropriate so long as the determinative issues will unfailingly be resolved within the parameters of the statecourt litigation  as no further action by the district court is anticipated holding that a forfeiture action is timely so long as at least an administrative action is filed within the 120day statutory period recognizing appellate courts discretion to consider issues raised in the district court but not resolved there holding that congress may impose its will on the states as long as it is acting within the powers granted by the constitution recognizing that a failure to cite supreme court decisions does not itself suggest a state court decision is contrary to such precedents   so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the statecourt decision contradicts them 