ORDER

B. AVANT EDENFIELD, District Judge.

Plaintiff Landmark Capital Investments, Inc. ("LCI") filed this garnishment action on August 11, 2011, in the Northern District of Georgia. See Doc. 1. Defendant Savannah Nephrology filed a traverse, alleging that Georgia's post-judgment garnishment procedure is unconstitutional. See Doc. 2. Upon a motion by LCI, the case was subsequently transferred to this Court. See Docs. 3; 4; 5. The parties have not filed any additional submissions since the transfer.

A traverse is a proper vehicle for the defense that Savannah Nephrology erects. See, e.g., Weems v. Sterchi Bros. Stores, Inc., 238 Ga. 77, 77 (1976). But see O.C.G.A. § 18-4-65 ("[T]he defendant, by traverse of the plaintiffs affidavit, may challenge the existence of the judgment or the amount claimed due thereon. The defendant may plead any other matter in bar of the judgment, except as provided in subsection (b) of this Code section." (emphasis added)). The traverse, however, is lacking in detail and argument sufficient for this Court to decide the case based on that submission alone. Furthermore, LCI has filed no response to the traverse.

Accordingly, the Court now ORDERS Savannah Nephrology to file within twenty (20) days of this Order a motion to dismiss the garnishment proceeding, if Savannah Nephrology still intends to challenge it. The motion to dismiss should explain, in greater detail than the traverse, why Georgia's post-judgment garnishment procedures are unconstitutional and should discuss the appropriate disposition upon a finding that the procedure is unconstitutional. LCI shall respond to that motion, if filed, within seventeen (17) days. See S.D. Ga. L.R. 7.5; Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).