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)

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.
§ 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-