Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02578/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02578-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 152
Nature of Suit: Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Default of Student Loan

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

KAREN DUNFORD,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 09cv2578 L(WVG)

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION AND

GRANTING APPLICATION FOR

WRIT OF GARNISHMENT [doc.

#16]

Plaintiff filed a complaint for money damages alleging defendant’s failure to pay her

outstanding U.S. Department of Education Student Loan debt. Judgment was entered against the

defendant on March 24, 2010. Plaintiff filed an Application for Writ of Continuing Garnishment

against defendant requesting the Court’s permission to garnish 25 percent of her wages.

The matter was referred to the magistrate judge for consideration of the Application and

the preparation of a Report and Recommendation ("Report") under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

Civil Local Rule 72.3. The garnishment hearing was held on May 30, 2012. After reviewing the

applicable documents and the arguments of the parties at the garnishment hearing, the magistrate

judge entered a Report which recommended that plaintiff’s application be granted.

In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court “shall

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,”

and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made

09cv2578

Case 3:09-cv-02578-L-WVG Document 29 Filed 07/19/12 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

by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, “the district judge must

review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but

not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)

(emphasis in original).

Here, defendant has neither filed objections to the Report nor sought additional time in

which to file objections. Because the Report is unopposed, and the magistrate judge has carefully

and fully considered the arguments of the parties, the Court will adopt the Report.

Based on the foregoing, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety;

and the Petition for Continuing Garnishment is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 19, 2012

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. WILLIAM V. GALLO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

2 09cv2578

Case 3:09-cv-02578-L-WVG Document 29 Filed 07/19/12 Page 2 of 2