Opinion
3:22-mc-00296-BEN-MMP
08-29-2024
GREGORY KELLY, Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor, v. RANDALL MARK HICKMAN, et al., Defendant/Judgment Debtors.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT ORDER AND ORDER RESTRAINING JUDGMENT DEBTOR
[ECF NO. 9, 18]
HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
On March 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Assignment Order and Order Restraining Judgment Debtor. ECF No. 9. Defendants did not file an opposition.
On September 30, 2021, Magistrate Judge Michelle M. Pettit issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court grant Plaintiff's motion for assignment order and order restraining judgment debtor. ECF No. 18 (“R&R”). Magistrate Judge Pettit concluded Plaintiff's request was supported by sufficient evidence, and noted Judgment Debtors' failure to oppose. R&R at 4. Regarding the restraining order, Magistrate Judge Pettit cited Defendant's failure to make payments on the judgment since 2018 and confirmed this creates a reasonable inference the Defendant will dispose of any payments received from his 2023 tax returns without paying Plaintiff. R&R at 5. Accordingly, Judge Pettit recommended granting Plaintiff's motion for an order restraining Defendant from assigning or otherwise disposing of money received from tax returns. Id. Neither party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). However, “[t]he 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.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.
The Court need not conduct de novo review given the absence of objections. The Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for assignment order. Judgment Debtors are ORDERED to assign to Plaintiff its interests and rights to their 2023 state and federal tax refunds. This Assignment is effective ten (10) days from the date of the order, until such time as the Judgment herein is fully satisfied or unless the Parties stipulate otherwise. The Judgment Debtors are further ORDERED immediately to restrain from assigning or otherwise disposing of its rights and interest to payment as described above, so that the rights to payment may be available for satisfaction of the Judgment herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.