Opinion
11-mc-50839
06-27-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JANEAN COLLINS, Defendant.
Honorable David M. Lawson Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR A HEARING (ECF NO. 8)
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Clerk's Office entered a writ of continuing garnishment as to garnishee Henry Ford Health System (HFHS), believed to be Defendant Janean Collins's employer. ECF No. 5. Collins requests a hearing, claiming that the garnishment could cause her economic hardship. ECF No. 8. The government opposes Collins's request. ECF No. 11. The Honorable David M. Lawson referred the matter to the undersigned for a garnishment hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). ECF No. 9. The Court RECOMMENDS that Collins's request for a hearing be DENIED as moot.
In 2005, the government obtained a criminal judgment of restitution against Collins. United States v. Collins, No. 04-cr-81032, Judgment, ECF No. 117 (E.D. Mich.). In May 2023, the government attempted to garnish Collins' wages from HFHS. ECF No. 5. But HFHS then disclosed that Collins's employment was terminated in November 2022. ECF No. 7.
The government argues that there is no basis for a hearing, as “there are no wages subject to the garnishment issued to [HFHS].” ECF No. 11. The Court agrees and finds that Collins's request for a garnishment hearing should be DENIED as moot. See United States v. Bowie, No. 09-13981, 2010 WL 1286429 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 5, 2010), adopted, 2010 WL 1286428 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2010) (denying a request for hearing when the defendant's employment had been terminated).
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS
Within 14 days of being served with this report and recommendation, any party may serve and file specific written objections to this Court's findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). If a party fails to timely file specific objections, any further appeal is waived. Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991). And only the specific objections to this report and recommendation are preserved for appeal; all other objections are waived. Willis v. Secretary of HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991).
Each objection must be labeled as “Objection #1,” “Objection #2,” etc., and must specify precisely the provision of this report and recommendation to which it pertains. Within 14 days after service of objections, any non-objecting party must file a response to the objections, specifically addressing each issue raised in the objections in the same order and labeled as “Response to Objection #1,” “Response to Objection #2,” etc. The response must be concise and proportionate in length and complexity to the objections, but there is otherwise no page limitation. If the Court determines that any objections lack merit, it may rule without awaiting the response.