Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02390/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02390-13/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, 

Penn Treaty Network America Insurance

Co.,

Garnishee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 03-2390-PHX-JAT

ORDER

On December 26, 2007, Judgment-Creditor Lawrence Warfield filed an Application

for Judgment on Garnishment against Garnishee Penn Treaty Network America Insurance

Co. (Doc. #827). In its Answer, Penn Treaty indicated that it was holding two commission

checks totaling $341.28 for Judgment Creditor Robert Carroll. Mr. Carroll is an independent

insurance agent, not an employee, of Penn Treaty.

On February 28, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”)(Doc. #832) recommending that the Court deny Warfield’s Application for

Judgment on Garnishment against Garnishee Penn Treaty (Doc. #827). The Magistrate

Judge found that the amounts owed to Mr. Carroll were “earnings” exempted from

garnishment under Arizona’s garnishment statutes. 

Case 2:03-cv-02390-JAT Document 835 Filed 03/13/08 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 -

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 (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).

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

#832) is ACCEPTED; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Warfield’s Application for Judgment on

Garnishment against Garnishee Penn Treaty Network America Insurance Co. (Doc. #827).

DATED this 13th day of March, 2008.

Case 2:03-cv-02390-JAT Document 835 Filed 03/13/08 Page 2 of 2