United States of America v. Lagan et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
-against- 	1:24-CV-95 (LEK/DJS)
THOMAS K. LAGAN,
Defendant,
and
GOLDMAN SACHS EMPLOYEES’
PENSION PLAN,
Garnishee.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
On August 7, 2019, Defendant Thomas K. Lagan pled guilty to one count of conspiracy
to launder money and one count of filing a false tax return. See United States v. Lagan, 18-CR-
283 (N.D.N.Y. 2019) (“Crim. Dkt.”), Crim. Dkt. Nos. 29, 30. On December 12, 2019, Defendant
was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 78 months and ordered to pay restitution. Crim. Dkt.
No. 58. An amended judgment was filed which detailed that the final restitution amount would
be $6,271,058.00. Crim Dkt. No. 132 at 6. On April 2, 2025, a writ of continuing garnishment
was issued to Goldman Sachs Employees’ Pension Plan. Dkt. No. 59. Soon after, Defendant filed
an Exemption Claim and a Request for Hearing. Dkt. No. 63 (“Motion”). On May 9, 2025, the
Honorable Daniel J. Stewart, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a report and
recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(f), recommending the
Motion be denied. Dkt. No. 68 (“Report and Recommendation”).
Case 1:24-cv-00095-LEK-DJS Document 70 Filed 12/17/25 Page 1 of 4

2
No party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.1 For the reasons that
follow, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
II. 	BACKGROUND
In his analysis, Judge Stewart recommended denying Defendant’s Motion for two
reasons. First, “Defendant’s request did not identify one of the enumerated basis for exemption
of the property at issue.” R. & R. at 3. Judge Stewart explained that “[d]espite using a pre-printed
form which specifically delineates the exemptions available under 18 U.S.C. § 3613 and having
had a prior request for a hearing denied on this basis,” Defendant nevertheless “failed to select
one of those grounds for seeking an exemption.” Id. Second, Judge Stewart determined that
Defendant “failed to allege a colorable claim that his property is exempt from garnishment.” Id.
He notes that “[t]he only property which the Government presently seeks to garnish are pension
plan benefits,” and “the plan at issue here . . . is not one of the exempt plan types.” Id.
Judge Stewart thus recommended that the Motion be denied. Id. at 4.
III. 	LEGAL STANDARD
“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of the Magistrate Judge’s report
and recommendation], any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings
and recommendations as provided by rules of court.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also L.R.
72.1. However, if no objections are made, a district court need only review a report and
recommendation for clear error. See DiPilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 662 F. Supp. 2d 333, 339
(S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“The district court may adopt those portions of a report and recommendation to
1 On May 12, 2025, Defendant filed a letter with the Court. Dkt. No. 69. The Court understands
this letter to be an objection to the answers to the writs of garnishment, and not an objection to
the Report and Recommendation. See Dkt. Nos. 64, 67.
Case 1:24-cv-00095-LEK-DJS Document 70 Filed 12/17/25 Page 2 of 4

3
which no timely objections have been made, provided no clear error is apparent from the face of
the record.”). Clear error “is present when upon review of the entire record, the court is left with
the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Rivera v. Fed. Bureau of
Prisons, 368 F. Supp. 3d 741, 744 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (cleaned up). Upon review, a court “may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
IV. 	DISCUSSION
No party objected to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days after being
served with a copy of it. Accordingly, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for
clear error. See DiPilato, 662 F. Supp. 2d at 339. Having found none, the Court approves and
adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
V. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 68, is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendant’s motion requesting a hearing, Dkt. No. 63, is DENIED;
and it is further
ORDERED, within 30 days the government shall submit to the Court a proposed final
order of continuing garnishment; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on all
parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Case 1:24-cv-00095-LEK-DJS Document 70 Filed 12/17/25 Page 3 of 4

4
DATED: 	December 17, 2025
Albany, New York
LAWRENCE E. KAHN
United States District Judge
Case 1:24-cv-00095-LEK-DJS Document 70 Filed 12/17/25 Page 4 of 4