U.S. v. Sisneros, CR-16-01098-001-PHX-JAT (ESW). (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20190405b52
Visitors: 20
Filed: Apr. 04, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 04, 2019
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG , Senior District Judge . Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 45) from the Magistrate Judge who conducted the post judgment garnishment hearing at Defendant's request (Doc. 36). The R&R recommends that this Court deny Defendant's request to quash, modify or suspend the garnishment of 25% of her non-exempt wages. This Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate ju
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG , Senior District Judge . Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 45) from the Magistrate Judge who conducted the post judgment garnishment hearing at Defendant's request (Doc. 36). The R&R recommends that this Court deny Defendant's request to quash, modify or suspend the garnishment of 25% of her non-exempt wages. This Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate jud..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. TEILBORG, Senior District Judge.
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 45) from the Magistrate Judge who conducted the post judgment garnishment hearing at Defendant's request (Doc. 36). The R&R recommends that this Court deny Defendant's request to quash, modify or suspend the garnishment of 25% of her non-exempt wages. This Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Accordingly, the Court 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 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 45) is accepted. Defendant's request to quash, modify or suspend the garnishment of 25% of her non-exempt wages is denied.
Source: Leagle
