ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR A GARNISHMENT HEARING [36]

NANCY G. EDMUNDS, District Judge.

This is a garnishment action. On December 14, 2006, Plaintiff United States of America filed a Complaint against Defendant Yohannes Bolds, seeking recovery of $5,245.21 in unpaid student loans. (Dkt. 1.) On September 20, 2007, this Court granted summary judgment in Plaintiff's favor, awarding Plaintiff $5,245.21, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. (Dkt. 12.) On May 31, 2017, Plaintiff served a Writ of Continuing Garnishment upon Garnishee St. Joseph Mercy Oakland Hospital. (Dkt. 32.) Following Garnishee's Answer, Defendant filed a request for a hearing on the Writ of Continuing Garnishment, in which he claims that he has paid his debt in full. (Dkt. 36.) Defendant did not request a hearing on Garnishee's Answer. For the reasons that follow, Defendant's request for a garnishment hearing is DENIED.

28 U.S.C. § 3202(d) provides that courts shall hold a garnishment hearing when requested by a judgment debtor. But in cases not involving a default judgment, the issues at such a hearing are limited to: (1) "the probable validity of any claim of exemption by the judgment debtor"; or (2) "compliance with any statutory requirement for the issuance of the postjudgment remedy granted." Id. As a result, courts have denied hearings where the debtor has not objected based on one of the issues listed in § 3202(d), where the objection is plainly without merit, or where the objection is simply a matter of statutory interpretation. United States v. Miller, 588 F.Supp.2d 789, 797 (W.D. Mich. 2008).

Here, the only argument Defendant has raised — that he has paid his debt in full — is plainly without merit, belied by his own submissions to the Court. As Defendant's documentation indicates, Plaintiff has received only $2,581.25 from Defendant since the 2007 judgment awarded Plaintiff $5,245.21, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. (Dkt. 36, at 2-4.) That is not payment in full. Moreover, to the extent that Defendant may be arguing that he paid his student loan debt before the 2007 judgment, that issue has already been decided against him twice: (1) when the Court granted summary judgment in Plaintiff's favor; and (2) when the Court rejected Defendant's motion for relief from judgment. (See Dkt. 12; Dkt. 22; Dkt. 28.)

Given that Defendant's only objection to the Writ of Continuing Garnishment is plainly without merit, the Court DENIES his request for a hearing.

SO ORDERED.

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on July 12, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.