United States of America v. Miller

Filing 92

ORDER adopting 86 Report and Recommendation; overruling 89 Defendant's Objection to the Report and Recommendation and denying 76 Objection to the Garnishment. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 08-11499
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
ARTHUR J. TARNOW

Plaintiff,
v.

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
R. STEPHEN WHALEN

DARRYL MILLER,
Defendant,
v.
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
TREASURY,
Garnishee.
/

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
[86]]; OVERRULING DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [89], AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION [76] TO THE
GARNISHMENT
This a student loan case that comes before the Court on Defendant Darryl
Miller’s objection to a writ of continuing garnishment. The Court granted Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment on May 21, 2009, and issued a Judgment against
Darryl Miller in the amount of $30,248.87, plus pre- and post-judgment interest
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. [Dkt. # 40]. On August 5, 2009. Mr. Miller filed an
application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal [46]. The Court denied that
Page 1 of 4

motion on September 17, 2009 [49]. Writs of garnishment [59, 60, 61] were then
issued against several garnishees, including the Michigan Department of Treasury,
Bank of America, and Flagstar Bank.
Mr. Miller filed a request for a hearing on the writs of garnishment [65], and
his hearing was set for March 25, 2010 [68]. During the hearing, the parties reached
a settlement agreement, and Mr. Miller dismissed his appeal. At some point between
that hearing and July 6, 2018, the settlement broke down, and Plaintiff issued another
Writ of Continuing Garnishment against Michigan’s Department of Treasury [75].
Mr. Miller requested a hearing on the writ, and the matter was referred to the
Magistrate Judge.
The Magistrate Judge held a hearing on February 28, 2019, and he
recommended denying Mr. Miller’s objection to the garnishment. The Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) [86] found that Mr. Miller had not carried his burden of
showing that he is entitled to an exemption from the writ of garnishment. See United
States v. Sawaf, 74 F.3d 119, 122 (6th Cir. 1996). Mr. Miller seeks to negotiate a
payment plan with Plaintiff, but the Court is not empowered to craft a second
settlement agreement between the parties. As to the payment plan, the Magistrate
Judge noted,
At the hearing, the Plaintiff indicated a willingness to consider a
new payment plan, but requires financial information from the Defendant.
If the Defendant is willing to provide that information and engage in
discussions with Plaintiff’s counsel, it is possible that he might be able to
Page 2 of 4

obtain relief that would alleviate some of his financial concerns. But that
issue is not before me, nor or any issues relating to the validity of the
underlying judgment. Because Defendant has not shown that his Michigan
income tax refunds are exempt from garnishment, his objections must be
denied.
R&R at 3.
28 U.S.C. § 3014 provides the mechanism for debtors to exempt portions of
their income from a writ of garnishment. Economic difficulties alone will “not
provide a sufficient basis to exempt [the debtor’s income] from the writ.” United
States v. Jones, No. 11-11319, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152747, *4 (Dec. 1, 2011)
(quoting U.S. v. Wells, No. 06-10589, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83124, at *6-7 (E.D.
Mich. Nov. 3, 2006)).
Mr. Miller filed an Objection [89] to the R&R on the grounds that financial
difficulties and other factors beyond his control precipitated the breakdown of his
negotiated payment plan. That may be so, but that is not grounds for an exemption,
and that is the only issue before the Court at this time. Mr. Miller’s petition that the
Court allow a payment plan is premature. The Court will, as it has done before,
accept a fairly negotiated settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant, but
it is up to the parties, including Mr. Miller, to provide each other with the information
they need in order to reach such an agreement.
As a final matter, Mr. Miller must start filing motions pursuant to the Court’s
Local Rules. See https://www.mied.uscourts.gov/PDFFIles/localRulesPackage.pdf.
Page 3 of 4

Mr. Miller can file documents with the clerk’s office either in person or by mail.
Faxing documents to the Court is neither proper nor efficient.1
The Court having reviewed the record, the Report and Recommendation [86]
is hereby ADOPTED and entered as the findings and conclusions of the Court.
IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Miller’s Objection [89] to the Report and
Recommendation is OVERRULED.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2019

s/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge

As far back as 2009, documents, such as the “Defendant’s Motion for Leave to
File Amended Answer to Complaint to Add More Definite Statement of CounterComplaint,” were not found on the docket when they should have been. (Dkt. 49).

1

Page 4 of 4