United States of America v. Budd
Filing
11
OPINION and ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT'S 9 MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO REPORT & RECOMMENDATION AND (2) ADOPTING 8 MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (AFla)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID BUDD,
Civil Case No. 21-mc-50759
Honorable Linda V. Parker
Defendant,
and
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT
OF TREASURY,
Garnishee.
______________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION AND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
OBJECTIONS TO REPORT & RECOMMENDATION AND (2)
ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
The United States brought this garnishment action to collect restitution
Defendant David Budd was ordered to pay as part of his sentence in a criminal
matter. See J., United States v. Budd, 19-cr-20278 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 11, 2020),
ECF No. 24. The United States served a Writ of Continuing Garnishment upon the
Michigan Department of Treasury to enforce the order of restitution. Defendant
has filed a Request for Hearing to address his claimed exemptions from
garnishment, specifically judgments for support of minor children and minimum
exemptions for wages, salary, and other income. (ECF No. 4.) In response, the
Government acknowledges that obligations to support minor children could be
exempt contingent upon an enforceable support order; however, the Government
points out that Defendant provides no information or documentation reflecting
such an order. (ECF No. 6 at Pg ID 26.) The Government also acknowledges that
an exempt amount of wages, salary, or other income are not subject to
garnishment. (Id.) However, the Government maintains, “tax refunds or other
payments made to Defendant by the Michigan Department of Treasury” are subject
to garnishment, which is what its garnishment attaches. (Id. at Pg ID 27.) The
Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman. (ECF No. 5.)
On August 31, 2021, Magistrate Judge Altman issued a Report and
Recommendation (R&R) recommending that the Court deny Defendant’s objection
to the writ of garnishment. (ECF No. 8.) Magistrate Judge Altman concludes that
a state income tax return does not fall under either category of exemption claimed
by Defendant. (Id. at Pg ID 34.) Because Defendant’s objection to the
garnishment lacks merit, Magistrate Judge Altman further concludes that he is not
entitled to a hearing. (Id. at Pg ID 35.) At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate
Judge Altman informs the parties of their right to file objections. (Id. at Pg ID 352
36.) As Magistrate Judge Altman explains, objections must be filed within 14 days
of the R&R and must be specific. (Id. at Pg ID 36.) She further warns the parties
that the “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right
of appeal.” (Id. (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 144 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir. 1991).)
On September 13, 2021, Defendant filed a “Motion for Clarification and
Request for Extension of Time to File Objections to Report and
Recommendation.” (ECF No. 9.) Defendant indicates that the R&R “implies that
the only property subject to garnishment in this action is any pending or future tax
income refunds owed to [him] from the State of Michigan.” (Id. at Pg ID 38.) If
this is correct, Defendant states that he has no objections. (Id.) If not correct and
the garnishment applies to other property, Defendant asks the Court for an
additional 21 days to object to the R&R. (Id. at Pg ID 39.) At the Court’s request,
the Government filed a response to Defendant’s motion on October 8. (ECF No.
10.)
As the Government’s earlier response to Defendant’s request for hearing
made clear, it is seeking “income tax refunds or other payments” due to Defendant
from the Michigan Department of Treasury. (ECF No. 6 at Pg ID 23 (emphasis
added).) The Government clarifies in its recent request: “It is conceivable that the
State of Michigan Department of Treasury owes or could owe Mr. Budd money or
3
property besides income tax refunds, e.g., lottery winnings, proceeds of a lawsuit,
overpayments of some kind, etc., that would be subject to garnishment.” (ECF No.
10 at Pg ID 43.) Nothing suggests that these other payments constitute “amount[s]
payable to or received by an individual as wages or salary for personal services, or
as income derived from other sources” as are exempt from garnishment under the
law. See 18 U.S.C. §3613(a)(1); 26 U.S.C. §6334(9). Moreover, as the Writ of
Garnishment is not directed at property claimed exempted by Defendant, a hearing
remains unnecessary with respect to the writ.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Clarification and Request
for Extension of Time to File Objections to Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
9) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Objection to Writ of
Garnishment and Request for Hearing (ECF No. 4) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 25, 2021
4
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, October 25, 2021, by electronic and/or
U.S. First Class mail.
s/Aaron Flanigan
Case Manager
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?