Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_00-cv-00116/USCOURTS-azd-4_00-cv-00116-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 152
Nature of Suit: Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Recovery of Debt to US

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Archibong Ekpenyong, 

Defendant,

and

Whataburger Restaurants of Arizona, Inc.,

Garnishee. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 00-116 TUC GEE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the court is a motion for entry of a garnishment disposition order filed

by the government on October 19, 2006. [doc. # 15] The defendant did not file a response.

This report and recommendation is submitted to District Court Judge Frank R. Zapata,

who was chosen by lot under the Clerk’s direction.

Discussion

On February 22, 2000, the government filed this action claiming the defendant owes

a debt to the United States as a result of an educational loan. The defendant failed to appear,

and the court issued a default judgment on May 2, 2000. 

Case 4:00-cv-00116-GEE Document 16 Filed 11/01/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

On September 14, 2006, the government applied for a writ of garnishment as to

Whataburger Restaurants of Arizona, Inc., pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3205. The Clerk issued

the writ, and on September 19, 2006, the government served the writ on the garnishee. See

28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(3).

On September 21, 2006, the government served the defendant with a copy of the writ,

the Clerk’s notice to the judgment debtor, and instructions for requesting a hearing on any

objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(3)(B). 

The garnishee answered the writ on September 25, 3006, and served a copy on the

defendant. The garnishee has in its possession non-exempt earnings belonging to the

defendant. 

The statutory 20-day period to file objections has passed. See 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(5).

The defendant has not requested a hearing on the garnishment. The procedural requirements

described at 28 U.S.C. § 3205 have been fulfilled. 

Recommendation

 The Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court, after its independent review of

the record, GRANT the motion for entry of a garnishment disposition order filed by the

government on October 19, 2006. [doc. # 15] 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 (b), any party may serve and file written objections within

10 days of being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. If objections are

not timely filed, the party’s right to de novo review may be waived. See United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). 

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this report and recommendation to all parties.

DATED this 1st day of November, 2006.

Case 4:00-cv-00116-GEE Document 16 Filed 11/01/06 Page 2 of 2