Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02390/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02390-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

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

Lawrence J. Warfield, as Receiver, 

Judgment Creditor, 

vs.

Michael Alaniz; Charles Davis; et al., 

Judgment Debtors, 

American Investors Life Insurance Co.,

Garnishee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 03-2390-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Judgment-Creditor Lawrence Warfield issued a writ of garnishment against Garnishee

American Investors Life Insurance Co. (Doc. #639). In its Verified Answer, Garnishee

American Investors Life Insurance Co. indicated that at the time the writ of garnishment was

served, the “total amount of indebtedness of monies of the judgment debtor [Paul Richard]

in possession of garnishee [American Investors]” was $19,099.40 (Doc. #803 at 1). The

Answer also claimed that the property was the personal property of Paul Richard. JudgmentDebtor Paul Richard filed an Objection to Garnishment (Doc. #814) and a Motion for

Hearing on Garnishment (Doc. #805). Mr. Richard alleges that the American Investors

annuity, valued at $19,099.40, is exempt from garnishment under Arizona law. JudgmentCreditor Warfield never filed a response to the Objection. The Magistrate Judge scheduled

Case 2:03-cv-02390-JAT Document 823 Filed 12/06/07 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 -

a hearing on the Objection for November 7, 2007, but vacated the hearing because Mr.

Warfield never filed a response. On November 7, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report

and Recommendation (“R&R”)(Doc. #818) recommending that the Court sustain Mr.

Richard’s Objection to Garnishment.

Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. The Court therefore hereby accepts the

R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (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. Reyna-Tapia, 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).

Accordingly,

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

#818) is ACCEPTED; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED SUSTAINING Judgment-Debtor Paul Richard’s

Objection to Garnishment (Doc. #814).

DATED this 6th day of December, 2007.

Case 2:03-cv-02390-JAT Document 823 Filed 12/06/07 Page 2 of 2