UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

QB PITTMAN, 

Defendant. 

____________________________/ 

 Case No. 15-50733 

Curtis Ivy, Jr. 

United States Magistrate Judge 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO CHANGE GARNISHMENT AMOUNT 

(ECF No. 15) 

Writs of continuing garnishment were issued on May 20, 2015. At the time 

those writs were issued, Defendant QB Pittman owed $90,421.46, excluding costs, 

in criminal restitution. One writ of continuing garnishment remains as to the 

Michigan Department of Treasury. According to the United States, Defendant 

currently owes $69,404.88. 

On January 12, 2023, Plaintiff requested a reduction of the monthly 

garnishment amount. (ECF No. 15). He says 15% of his Social Security benefit, 

or $390, per month is taken from his Social Security disability insurance. He 

asserts that he cannot work because he suffered a stroke and cannot live on the 

remaining amount of his Social Security disability benefits. 

It appears from Defendant’s request that garnishment payments are made 

from his Social Security disability benefits. Thus, he effectively seeks relief from 

Case 4:15-mc-50733-CI ECF No. 20, PageID.62 Filed 03/21/23 Page 1 of 4
2 

reductions in his Social Security payments under the Treasury Offset Program 

(“TOP”) under 31 C.F.R. § 285.4. This program is a federally administered 

program to collect debts owed for which the United States has collection 

responsibility. United States v. Campbell, 245 F. App’x 505, 507 (6th Cir. 2007). 

“The amount offset from a monthly covered benefit payment shall be the lesser of: 

(ii) An amount equal to 15% of the monthly covered benefit payment. . . .” 31 

C.F.R. § 285.4(e)(1)(ii). 

In response, the government argues that Pittman is not entitled to relief from 

his treasury offset payment. It cites cases stating that financial hardship is not a 

basis on which the Court can modify an offset payment. The 15% of monthly 

Social Security benefit garnished to pay a debt called for in the regulations does 

not consider the Defendant’s individual needs. See United States v. Weissenbach, 

2010 WL 2246177, at *2 (W.D.N.C. June 2, 2010). Thus, the government argues 

the Court should not independently look into Defendant’s individual needs or 

financial hardship to determine whether less than 15% should be taken from his 

benefits. It also asserts that Defendant did not support his request for modification 

with proof of the financial hardship. 

Defendant did not come forward with a reply brief. 

The request for modification of the garnishment amount is DENIED. As the 

United States noted, Defendant did not show financial hardship with proof or even 

Case 4:15-mc-50733-CI ECF No. 20, PageID.63 Filed 03/21/23 Page 2 of 4
3 

a more detailed explanation of the situation. The Court will not grant relief 

without an understanding of the problem. And Defendant has provided no 

authority to support his request. 

In closing, the United States asserted that it would contact Defendant to 

discuss a potential agreement to a lesser monthly payment. The government and 

Defendant are encouraged to have this discussion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 The parties here may object to and seek review of this Order, but are 

required to file any objections within 14 days of service as provided for in Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 72.1(d). A party may not assign as 

error any defect in this Order to which timely objection was not made. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72(a). Any objections are required to specify the part of the Order to which 

the party objects and state the basis of the objection. When an objection is filed to 

a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling remains in 

effect unless it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a district judge. E.D. Mich. 

Local Rule 72.2. 

Date: March 21, 2023 s/Curtis Ivy, Jr. 

Curtis Ivy, Jr. 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 4:15-mc-50733-CI ECF No. 20, PageID.64 Filed 03/21/23 Page 3 of 4
4 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned certifies that this document was served on counsel of 

record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System or by First Class 

U.S. mail on March 21, 2023. 

s/Kristen MacKay 

Case Manager 

(810) 341-7850 

Case 4:15-mc-50733-CI ECF No. 20, PageID.65 Filed 03/21/23 Page 4 of 4