Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08027/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08027-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

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 

Jean Reidhead, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Joseph P. Meyers, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Caribbean Financial Corporation, a 

Delaware corporation, 

 Counterclaimant/Judgment Creditor, 

v. 

Jean Reidhead, et al., 

 Counterdefendants/Judgment Debtors. 

Reidhead Sand & Rock Incorporated, et al., 

 Garnishees. 

No. CV-07-08027-PCT-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Judgment Creditor’s Writ of Garnishment and 

Summons and United States Magistrate Judge Steven P. Logan’s Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”). Docs. 134, 153. The R&R recommends that the Court 

discharge Garnishees of the Writ of Garnishment as to the monies withheld in the amount 

of $1,700. Doc. 153 at 7. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had 

Case 3:07-cv-08027-GMS Document 154 Filed 11/21/13 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could 

be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 8 (citing 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

 The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 

review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 

(1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is 

not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is welltaken. The Court will accept the R&R and discharge Garnishees. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) 

(“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive 

further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Magistrate Judge Logan’s R&R (Doc. 153) is accepted. 

 2. Judgment Creditor’s Writ of Garnishment and Summons (Doc. 1) is 

discharged as to the monies withheld in the amount of $1,700. 

 3. Judgment Creditor is directed to submit a proposed form of judgment 

within thirty (30) days of this Order, setting forth the manner by which the shares of 

stock will be sold under execution, up to a total amount in worth of $1,091,192.50. 

 Dated this 21st day of November, 2013. 

Case 3:07-cv-08027-GMS Document 154 Filed 11/21/13 Page 2 of 2