United States of America v. Gutman et al

Filing 10

ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Peebles' April 13, 2017 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein. The Court further ORDERS that Defendant's # 5 request for an evidentiary he aring is DENIED. The Court further ORDERS that Joseph Gutman, Jr.'s # 6 request for an Order discharging the writ of garnishment issued to garnishee Thrivent Financial is DENIED. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. on 5/10/2017. [Copy served upon Defendant at Danbury FCI via regular mail.] (nmk)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _________________________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 1:17-CV-134 (FJS/DEP) CAROL-LISA GUTMAN, Defendant, THRIVENT FINANCIAL, Garnishee. _________________________________________________ APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY James Hanley U.S. Courthouse & Federal Building 100 South Clinton Street Room 900 Syracuse, New York 13261 Attorneys for Plaintiff MARY E. LANGAN, AUSA CAROL-LISA GUTMAN Defendant pro se THRIVENT FINANCIAL 625 South 4th Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 Attorneys for Garnishee SCULLIN, Senior Judge ORDER On February 13, 2017, the Court (Peebles, M.J.) issued an Order approving the application for a Writ of Garnishment. See Dkt. No. 2. The Clerk of the Court issued the Writ of Garnishment the same day. See Dkt. No. 3. The writ is related to the enforcement of a judgment the Court entered against Defendant in favor of Plaintiff United States of America ("the Government"). In response to the Writ, Defendant filed a request for a hearing, arguing that she disagreed with the reason that the Government had given for taking her property, she did not owe the money to the Government, and the property the Government sought to take was exempt. See Dkt. No. 5 at 4. The Court (Peebles, M.J.) directed the Government to file a response to Defendant's request, which it did on March 24, 2017. See Text Notice dated March 13, 2017; Dkt. No. 8. On April 13, 2017, Magistrate Judge Peebles issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the Court find that the life insurance policy in question is not exempt and that Defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See, generally, Dkt. No. 9. The parties did not file any objections to those recommendations. When a party does not object to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the court reviews that report-recommendation for clear error or manifest injustice. See Linares v. Mahunik, No. 9:05-CV-625, 2009 WL 3165660, *10 (N.D.N.Y. July 16, 2009) (citation and footnote omitted). After conducting this review, "the Court may 'accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the . . . recommendations made by the magistrate judge.'" Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1)(C)). The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Peebles' April 13, 2017 Report and Recommendation for clear error and manifest injustice; and, finding none, the Court hereby ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Peebles' April 13, 2017 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further ORDERS that Defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing, see Dkt. No. 5, is DENIED; -2- and the Court further ORDERS that Joseph Gutman, Jr.'s request for an Order discharging the writ of garnishment issued to garnishee Thrivent Financial, see Dkt. No. 6, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 10, 2017 Syracuse, New York -3-

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?