USA v. Tucker

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
REX S. TUCKER, JR.,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 3:13-cr-78
Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(DOC. NO. 50); ENFORCING WRIT OF GARNISHMENT (DOC. NO. 32); AND,
GRANTING MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 48)
______________________________________________________________________________
Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) (Doc. No. 50). 	Therein, Magistrate Judge Gentry makes three
recommendations: first, Magistrate Judge Gentry recommends enforcing a writ of garnishment
against the estate of Defendant Rex Tucker, Jr.’s (“Tucker”) father to satisfy Tucker’s restitution
obligation in this case (id. at PageID 183); second, Magistrate Judge Gentry, observing that
Tucker’s father was also Tucker’s victim for purposes of restitution, recommends granting the
pending Motion for Assignment of Judgment (id. at PageID 187); and, finally, Magistrate Judge
Gentry has recommended that the Court modify its Amended Judgment (Doc. No. 29) to ensure
that Tucker’s garnished interest in his father’s estate goes to Tucker’s siblings rather than Tucker
himself (Doc. No.50 at PageID 183-87.)
Having conducted a de novo review of the record and, noting that no objections have been
filed regarding Magistrate Judge Gentry’s Report, and that the time for filing such objections under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired, the Court hereby ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Gentry’s Report
Case: 3:13-cr-00078-TMR-CHG Doc #: 51 Filed: 12/18/25 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
and Recommendation (Doc. No. 50). In particular, the Court agrees that the facts of this case are
materially distinguishable from those present in U.S. v. O’Hara, 114 F.4th 557 (6th Cir. 2024),
and a failure to modify Tucker’s restitution obligation in this instance would lead to an absurd
result that runs contrary to public policy. Accordingly, the Court rules as follows:
1. 	The Court hereby OVERRULES any pending objections to the Government’s
Writ 	of 	Garnishment 	(Doc. 	No. 	32) 	and 	ORDERS 	that 	the 	Writ 	be
ENFORCED;
2. 	The Motion for Assignment of Judgment (Doc. No. 48) is hereby GRANTED.
The Victim’s interest in restitution here is, therefore, assigned equally to Eddie
A. Tucker, Sr., Tammy L. England, Debra S. tucker, and Tiffany Creemens.
All payments of restitution received by the United States of America in this
matter shall be disbursed equally to said individuals; and,
3. 	The Court’s Amended Judgment shall be MODIFIED in accordance with the
findings articulated herein.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Thursday, December 18, 2025.
s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 3:13-cr-00078-TMR-CHG Doc #: 51 Filed: 12/18/25 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>