UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-10654

 vs. DISTRICT JUDGE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

RAYMOND B. RIPPY, MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

Defendant,

 vs.

GREATER DETROIT COMMUNITY

OUTREACH CENTER, INC. and 

COMERICA BANK,

Garnishees. 

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. RECOMMENDATION: The Request for Hearing About The Garnishment And

Claim For Exemptions on the writs of continuing garnishment directed to Greater Detroit

Community Outreach Center, Inc., filed on June 4, 2009 by an individual not a party to this

action (docket no. 18) should be DISMISSED.

II. REPORT:

A. Facts and Procedural History

Defendant Raymond Rippy took a student loan in 1987 in the principal amount of $2,625.00. 

(Docket no. 1). Defendant defaulted on the loan on August 9, 1988 and has made no payments on

the loan. (Docket no. 1). On March 21, 2009 this Court entered a judgment by default against

Defendant for the overdue loan, Claim 2009A18869 in the principal amount of $2,625.00 plus

prejudgment interest in the amount of $4,500.28 from the date of default through March 21, 2009

2:09-cv-10654-AJT-MKM Doc # 27 Filed 09/14/09 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 79
plus costs of $350.00 for a total judgment amount of $7,475.28 together with post judgment interest

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. (Docket no. 7). Writs of continuing garnishment were issued and

served on the Michigan Department of Treasury on April 21, 2009 and on Greater Detroit

Community Outreach Center, Inc. (“Greater Detroit”) and Comerica Bank on June 3, 2009. (Docket

nos. 12, 16, 17). This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Request for Hearing About the

Garnishment and Claim for Exemptions filed June 4, 2009. (Docket no. 18.). The Request for

Hearing About the Garnishment and Claim for Exemption was referred to the undersigned for

Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B).1 (Docket no. 25). The Court gave

notice of the hearing to Defendant Rippy and all counsel of record. (Docket no. 26). Plaintiff’s

counsel appeared for hearing on September 2, 2009. 

B. Analysis

The document filed with this Court on which the scheduled motion and hearing were held

is a form titled “Defendant’s Request For Hearing About The Garnishment And Claim For

Exemptions.” (Docket no. 18). The form contains the following handwritten statement: “Raymond

Rippy is not an employee of Greater Detroit Community Outreach Center. Last work as [illegible

“1099"?] non-employee [illegible] 2007.” (Docket no. 18). It came to the Court’s attention that the

Request for Hearing form is signed by someone named “Creighton Rippy,” not Defendant Raymond

Rippy. The form was carbon copied to the United States District Court, Plaintiff’s Counsel and

“Raymond Rippy.” (Docket no. 18). Plaintiff’s counsel stated at the hearing that Creighton Rippy

1

 Post-judgment objections to garnishment are not pretrial matters, and therefore a

Magistrate Judge who is referred these matters must proceed by Report and Recommendation

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). United States v. Tyson, 265 F. Supp. 2d 788, 789 (E.D.

Mich. 2003).

2

2:09-cv-10654-AJT-MKM Doc # 27 Filed 09/14/09 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 80
may be Defendant’s father and former employer at Greater Detroit. There is no evidence in the

record before the Court to support this conclusion. The “Guaranteed Student Loan Application and

Promissory Note” dated February 13, 1987 lists “Robert Rippy, Sr.” as Defendant/borrower

Raymond B. Rippy’s father, not Creighton Rippy. (Docket no. 1). Moreover, there is no indication

on the Request for Hearing Form that Creighton Rippy signed on behalf of Greater Detroit. (Docket

no. 19). 

“A court may issue a writ of garnishment against property (including nonexempt disposable

earnings) in which the debtor has a substantial nonexempt interest and which is in the possession,

custody, or control of a person other than the debtor, in order to satisfy the judgment against the

debtor.” 28 U.S.C. § 3205(a). The garnishee is required to answer a writ of garnishment within 10

days of service of the writ. 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(2), (4). A judgment debtor or the United States may

“file a written objection to the answer of a garnishee and request a hearing.” 28 U.S.C. § 2805(c)(5). 

Similarly, the United States or the debtor “may request a hearing on the applicability of any

exemption claimed by the debtor.” 28 U.S.C. § 3014(b)(2). A judgment debtor that claims

exemption from a writ of garnishment bears the burden of proving that he is entitled to the

exemption. 28 U.S.C. § 3014(b)(2); U.S. v. Sawaf, 74 F.3d 119, 122 (6th Cir.1996). The docket does

not show that garnishee Greater Detroit filed an answer to Plaintiff’s writ of garnishment. Even if

Creighton Rippy is an employee or other representative for garnishee Greater Detroit, the Court does

not find authority for a garnishee to request a hearing or make a claim for exemptions on behalf of

a judgement debtor. See 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(5), (6). 

“[I]t is well-established that a court may raise the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction sua

sponte.” See CMS North America, Inc. v. De Lorenzo Marble & Tile, Inc., 521 F.Supp. 2d 619, 632

3

2:09-cv-10654-AJT-MKM Doc # 27 Filed 09/14/09 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 81
(W.D. Mich. 2007) (citing Loren v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich., 505 F.3d 598, 606-07 (6th

Cir. 2007) (“Because the standing issue goes to this Court's subject matter jurisdiction, it can be

raised sua sponte.”) (citation omitted)). In this matter, the Request For Hearing About Garnishment

And Claim For Exemptions dated June 4, 2009 was filed by an individual other than Defendant. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 3205 only the debtor or the United States may request a hearing about the

garnishment, object to the garnishee’s answers and/or claim exemptions after receiving the

garnishee’s answer. The Court should find that neither Creighton Rippy nor Garnishee Greater

Detroit has standing to Request a Hearing About The Garnishment And Claim For Exemptions and 

Defendant Rippy has not filed a Request For Hearing About The Garnishment And Claim For

Exemptions. 

C. Conclusion

The Court should dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction the “Request For Hearing

About The Garnishment And Claim For Exemptions” (docket no. 18) which was filed by Creighton

Rippy on June 4, 2009. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

III. NOTICE TO PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS:

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation,

but are required to act within ten (10) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1) and E.D.Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of

any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health &

Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 

Filing of objections which raise some issues but fail to raise others with specificity, will not preserve

all the objections a party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec’y of Health

4

2:09-cv-10654-AJT-MKM Doc # 27 Filed 09/14/09 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 82
& Human Servs., 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n Of Teachers Local 231,

829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any

objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.

Any objections must be labeled as “Objection #1,” “Objection #2,” etc. Any objection must

recite precisely the provision of this Report and Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later

than ten days after service of an objection, the opposing party must file a concise response

proportionate to the objections in length and complexity. The response must specifically address

each issue raised in the objections, in the same order and labeled as “Response to Objection #1,”

“Response to Objection #2,” etc.

Dated: September 14, 2009 s/ Mona K. Majzoub 

MONA K. MAJZOUB

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of this Report and Recommendation was served upon Raymond

B. Rippy and Counsel of Record on this date.

Dated: September 14, 2009 s/ Lisa C. Bartlett 

Courtroom Deputy

5

2:09-cv-10654-AJT-MKM Doc # 27 Filed 09/14/09 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 83