From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Heidarpour

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jul 24, 2017
No. MC-17-0012-PHX-DJH (DMF) (D. Ariz. Jul. 24, 2017)

Opinion

No. MC-17-0012-PHX-DJH (DMF)

07-24-2017

United States of America Petitioner, v. Farideh Heidarpour, Defendant, Wilenchik & Bartness PC, Garnishee, JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A., Garnishee.


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE DIANE J. HUMETEWA, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:

Pursuant to the Court's June 12, 2017 Order (Doc. 18) granting Defendant Farideh Heidarpour's request for a hearing on the Government's Writ of Garnishment directed to the Wilenchik & Bartness law firm, the Court heard oral argument during which time, and upon consideration of the Court's statements on the record, the objecting party, Defendant Farideh Heidarpour, withdrew her objection to this particular garnishment.

Accordingly, the Government will submit a proposed Writ of Garnishment accepting $2,137.39 from the Garnishee Wilenchik & Bartness.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the District Judge accept and sign the Proposed Writ of Garnishment the Government will tender.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dated this 24th day of July, 2017.

/s/_________

David K. Duncan

United States Magistrate Judge *Magistrate Judge Duncan signing for Magistrate Judge Fine


Summaries of

United States v. Heidarpour

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jul 24, 2017
No. MC-17-0012-PHX-DJH (DMF) (D. Ariz. Jul. 24, 2017)
Case details for

United States v. Heidarpour

Case Details

Full title:United States of America Petitioner, v. Farideh Heidarpour, Defendant…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Date published: Jul 24, 2017

Citations

No. MC-17-0012-PHX-DJH (DMF) (D. Ariz. Jul. 24, 2017)