U.S. v. YOUNG, 11-12440. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20140606c40
Visitors: 18
Filed: Jun. 05, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 05, 2014
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ROBERT H. CLELAND, District Judge. The Objections to the writ of garnishment filed by defendant Chandra Young was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1. The magistrate judge issued his report on March 28, 2014, recommending that writ of garnishment be discharged as the parties have agreed to a resolution of the matter. The stipulated order resolving defenda
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ROBERT H. CLELAND, District Judge. The Objections to the writ of garnishment filed by defendant Chandra Young was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1. The magistrate judge issued his report on March 28, 2014, recommending that writ of garnishment be discharged as the parties have agreed to a resolution of the matter. The stipulated order resolving defendan..
More
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ROBERT H. CLELAND, District Judge.
The Objections to the writ of garnishment filed by defendant Chandra Young was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1. The magistrate judge issued his report on March 28, 2014, recommending that writ of garnishment be discharged as the parties have agreed to a resolution of the matter. The stipulated order resolving defendant's objection to the garnishment and the entry of a payment order was filed on March 31, 2014. No objections have been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C), thus further appeal rights are waived.1
Having reviewed the file and the report, the court concludes that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and ADOPTS the same for purposes of this Order. Therefore,
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the writ of garnishment is discharged.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The failure to object to the magistrate judge's report releases the court from its duty to independently review the motion. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
Source: Leagle
