U.S. v. EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P., 4:10cr57.6. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
Number: infdco20120117a75
Visitors: 27
Filed: Jan. 13, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 13, 2012
Summary: MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER, District Judge. Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. On December 21, 2011, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Defendant's Motion to Quash Writ of Garnis
Summary: MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER, District Judge. Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. On December 21, 2011, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Defendant's Motion to Quash Writ of Garnish..
More
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER, District Judge.
Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On December 21, 2011, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Defendant's Motion to Quash Writ of Garnishment, Claim for Exemptions, and Request for Hearing (Dkt. #1035) be denied.
Having received the report of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto having been timely filed, this Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge's report as the findings and conclusions of the Court.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Quash Writ of Garnishment, Claim for Exemptions, and Request for Hearing (Dkt. #1035) is DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
