Opinion
Case No. 2:08-cv-29.
March 18, 2009
ORDER
On December 17, 2008, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that plaintiff's motion for default and judgment, Doc. No. 14, be denied because defendants responded to the Complaint in a timely fashion. Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 17. This matter is now before the Court on plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation, which the Court will consider de novo. Doc. No. 23.
The Court notes that plaintiff's motion was filed before the time for filing defendants' Answer had expired.
In his objections, plaintiff complains that a copy of defendants' Answer was not served on him. The Answer, Doc. No. 15, contains a certificate of service indicating that a copy of the filing would be made upon plaintiff through the Court's electronic filing system. Doc. No. 15, p. 7. However, plaintiff, who is not registered to file documents electronically, is entitled to a paper copy of any document filed. See F.R. Civ. P. 5; Electronic Filing Policies and Procedures Manual for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, § II(B)(3). Defendants therefore failed to properly serve plaintiff with a copy of their Answer.
Defendants' failure, however, does not justify entry of their default. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 17, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Plaintiff's motion for default and judgment, Doc. No. 14, is DENIED.
Defendants are ORDERED to serve a paper copy of their Answer on plaintiff and to document on the record that they have done so.