From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Worsham v. Travel Options, Inc.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Mar 3, 2017
No. 16-2133 (4th Cir. Mar. 3, 2017)

Opinion

No. 16-2133

03-03-2017

MICHAEL C. WORSHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TRAVEL OPTIONS, INC.; CLIFFORD SHANNON, Defendants - Appellees.

Michael C. Worsham, Appellant Pro Se.


UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:14-cv-02749-JKB) Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael C. Worsham, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Michael Craig Worsham appeals the district court's order entering default judgment in his favor on some of his claims, while denying judgment on other claims. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), when a party against whom judgment is sought has failed to plead, the clerk must enter the party's default. The court may then enter a default judgment upon the motion of a party, and may conduct hearings to determine the amount of damages. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).

"The defendant, by his default, admits the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations of fact." Ryan v. Homecomings Fin. Network, 253 F.3d 778, 780 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). "The court must, therefore, determine whether the well-pleaded allegations in the [] complaint support the relief sought in [the] action." Id. "'[A] defendant's default does not in itself warrant the court in entering a default judgment. There must be a sufficient basis in the pleadings for the judgment entered.'" DIRECTV, Inc. v. Pernites, 200 F. App'x 257, 258 (4th Cir. 2006) (No. 04-2483) (quoting Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat'l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975)). "Further, a 'defendant is not held to admit facts that are not well-pleaded or to admit conclusions of law.'" DIRECTV, 200 F. App'x at 258 (citing Nishimatsu, 515 F.2d at 1206)). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not commit reversible error in entering default judgment on some of Worsham's claims, while denying judgment in his favor on his remaining claims.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order and deny Worsham's motions for costs and to compel answers to interrogatories in aid of execution. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED


Summaries of

Worsham v. Travel Options, Inc.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Mar 3, 2017
No. 16-2133 (4th Cir. Mar. 3, 2017)
Case details for

Worsham v. Travel Options, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL C. WORSHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TRAVEL OPTIONS, INC.…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Mar 3, 2017

Citations

No. 16-2133 (4th Cir. Mar. 3, 2017)

Citing Cases

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Blake

See Worsham v. Travel Options, Inc., 678 Fed.Appx. 165 (4th Cir. 2017); Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v.…

Sprye v. Ace Motor Acceptance Corp.

Thus, the elements of Plaintiff's TCPA and MDTCPA violations, as alleged in Counts One through Three, are (1)…