use of property that forms the basis of the underlying forfeiture action, the Court agrees with Harborside that when a CSA violation is alleged, only the Government qualifies as a proper movant for purposes of Rule G(7)(a). As indicated above, the starting point for this analysis is § 882 of the CSA, which authorizes district courts to enjoin violations of the CSA consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, Rule G cannot be read in isolation; rather, the CSA provides the parameters for any requested relief as long as it is consistent with the Federal Rules, As Harborside points out, courts have consistently held that there is n o Rule G(7)(a) to stop alleged violations of the CSA would thus give them power not intended under the CSA. See Jones, 745 F.Supp.2d at 892 (<HOLDING>). Concourse and Ms. Chretien’s only response is
recognizing that under the act states are granted federal funds to provide disabled children with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment holding that  1983 does not provide a remedy if there is no violation of federal law holding that it may be decided as a matter of law recognizing that when  congress has decided not to provide a particular federal remedy we are not free to supplement that decision in a way that makes it meaningless recognizing appellate courts are not free to rewrite rules