Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00622/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00622-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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

Carpenters Southwest Administrative

Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Lone Cactus Construction Corporation, an

Arizona corporation, a/k/a Lone Cactus

Construction, Corp., 

Defendant. _________________________________

Bank of America,

Garnishee

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-622-PHX-JAT

 (formerly MC-07-27-PHX-JAT)

ORDER

On February 21, 2008, Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor Carpenters Southwest

Administrative Corp. (“Carpenters”) filed an Application for Writ of Garnishment against

Garnishee Bank of America (Doc. #12). In its Answer (Doc. #18), Bank of America

indicated that, at the time of the Writ, Bank of America owed the Defendant/JudgmentDebtor Lone Cactus Construction Corp. (“Lone Cactus”) $2,311.11. 

On April 18, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”)(Doc. #29) recommending that the Court enter a Judgment on Garnishment against

Garnishee Bank of America in the amount of $2161.11. No party has objected to the R&R.

Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149

Case 2:08-cv-00622-JAT Document 30 Filed 05/06/08 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 -

(1985) (finding that district courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any

issue that is not the subject of an objection” (emphasis added)); United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“statute makes it clear that the district

judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection

is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263

F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003).

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc.

#29) is ACCEPTED; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING Carpenters’ Motion for Judgment

Against Garnishee (Doc. #26) in the amount of $2161.11.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Garnishee Bank of America is awarded $150 for

its reasonable compensation in answering the Writ of Garnishment, said amount to be taxed

against Defendant/Judgment-Debtor Lone Cactus.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Carpenters shall deliver a copy of this Judgment

to Bank of America and Lone Cactus; and on receipt of a copy of this Judgment, Bank of

America shall transfer the nonexempt funds awarded to Carpenters to Carpenters’s attorney.

DATED this 5th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00622-JAT Document 30 Filed 05/06/08 Page 2 of 2