Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00379/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00379-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 490
Nature of Suit: Cable/ Satellite TV
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

DIRECTV, Inc., a California corporation,

Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor, 

v. 

Eagle West Communications, Inc., d/b/a 

Eagle West Cable, a Nevada corporation, et 

al., 

Defendant/Judgment Debtor. 

__________________________________ 

Francisco and Marla Delores Saldana, 

Garnishee. 

No. CV-09-00379-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 On December 17, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 182) recommending that Defendants’ Objection to the 

Writ of Garnishment be overruled and Plaintiff’s Application for Judgment against the 

Garnishee (Doc. 157) be granted. 

 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Accordingly, the Court 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 

Case 2:09-cv-00379-JAT Document 185 Filed 01/23/13 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 

1

1

G

th

O

219, 1226 (

Acco

IT IS

82) is accep

IT I

Garnishmen

IT IS

he Garnishe

IT IS

Order, Plain

Dated

(D. Ariz. 20

rdingly, 

S ORDERE

pted. 

S FURTH

t is overrule

S FURTHE

ee (Doc. 15

S FURTHE

tiff shall su

d this 23rd d

003). 

ED that the 

HER ORD

ed. 

ER ORDER

7) is grante

ER ORDE

ubmit a prop

day of Janu

- 2

Magistrate

DERED tha

RED that P

ed. 

ERED that,

posed judgm

uary, 2013.

2 - 

e Judge’s Re

at Defenda

Plaintiff’s A

, within sev

ment agains

eport and R

ants’ Objec

Application

ven (7) da

st Garnishee

Recommend

ction to th

n for Judgm

ays of the d

e. 

dation (Doc

he Writ o

ment agains

date of thi

c. 

f 

st 

s

Case 2:09-cv-00379-JAT Document 185 Filed 01/23/13 Page 2 of 2