Seneca Insurance Company (“Seneca”) filed the instant suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (the “Seneca Action”) against Wayne Daniel, the appellant, seeking a declaration as to whether Daniel was entitled to the proceeds of a fire insurance policy. Pursuant to an order of the district court, Seneca deposited the $145,000 in disputed insurance proceeds in an escrow account at Frontier Bank in Chattanooga, Tennessee. In a separate action (the “Garnishment Action”), Kris Well-born, the appellee, who had registered a foreign judgment with the district court, obtained a writ of garnishment to attach *873the disputed insurance proceeds. Well-born also moved to intervene in the Seneca Action. On March 26, 2002, the district court entered an order granting Daniel summary judgment against Seneca and awarding Daniel the disputed insurance proceeds, denying Wellborn’s motion for intervention, and quashing the writ of garnishment. However, the order also directed Frontier Bank to hold the insurance proceeds for a period of thirty days to allow Wellborn to obtain a second writ of garnishment. Wellborn soon served a second writ of garnishment on Frontier Bank, and Daniel moved to quash the garnishment. On December 3, 2002, the district court entered an order denying Daniel’s motion to quash the garnishment and directing Frontier Bank to disburse the insurance proceeds to Wellborn pursuant to the writ of garnishment.

On appeal,1 Daniel contends that the district court erred by directing Frontier Bank to continue to hold the disputed insurance proceeds in the March 26 order and by directing Frontier Bank to disburse the proceeds to Wellborn in the December 3 order. Specifically, Daniel asserts that (1) the district court lacked the authority to authorize the garnishment of the proceeds because Frontier Bank held the funds in custodia legis, and (2) the district lost jurisdiction over the proceeds when it granted Daniel’s motion for summary judgment against Seneca.

Having studied the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the district court should be AFFIRMED upon the reasoning set out in the district court’s memorandum opinion,2 which was entered on December 3, 2003, with the district court’s December 3 order. Under Tennessee law, which controls the garnishment proceedings, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(a), the doctrine of custodia legis3 does not prohibit a court from authorizing the garnishment of funds held in custodia legis at its direction. The district court did not “lose jurisdiction” over the insurance proceeds when it granted Daniel summary judgment against Seneca because the March 26 order, which *874granted the summary judgment, was a conditional judgment.