Free Order Adopting Report and Recommendations - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) ) Judgment Creditor, ) ) vs. ) ) ) Michael Alaniz; Charles Davis; et al., ) ) Judgment Debtors, ) ) ) American Investors Life Insurance Co., ) ) Garnishee. ) ) Lawrence J. Warfield, as Receiver,

No. CV 03-2390-PHX-JAT ORDER

Judgment-Creditor Lawrence Warfield issued a writ of garnishment against Garnishee 19 American Investors Life Insurance Co. (Doc. #639). In its Verified Answer, Garnishee 20 American Investors Life Insurance Co. indicated that at the time the writ of garnishment was 21 served, the "total amount of indebtedness of monies of the judgment debtor [Paul Richard] 22 in possession of garnishee [American Investors]" was $19,099.40 (Doc. #803 at 1). The 23 Answer also claimed that the property was the personal property of Paul Richard. Judgment24 Debtor Paul Richard filed an Objection to Garnishment (Doc. #814) and a Motion for 25 Hearing on Garnishment (Doc. #805). Mr. Richard alleges that the American Investors 26 annuity, valued at $19,099.40, is exempt from garnishment under Arizona law. Judgment27 Creditor Warfield never filed a response to the Objection. The Magistrate Judge scheduled 28
Case 2:03-cv-02390-JAT Document 823 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

a hearing on the Objection for November 7, 2007, but vacated the hearing because Mr. Warfield never filed a response. On November 7, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R")(Doc. #818) recommending that the Court sustain Mr. Richard's Objection to Garnishment. Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. The Court therefore hereby accepts the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not required to conduct "any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection" (emphasis added)); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) ("statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise" (emphasis in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #818) is ACCEPTED; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED SUSTAINING Judgment-Debtor Paul Richard's Objection to Garnishment (Doc. #814). DATED this 6th day of December, 2007.

-2Case 2:03-cv-02390-JAT Document 823 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 2 of 2