Brown v. Techlaw, Inc.

Full title: ANTHONY E. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. TECHLAW, INC., Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION

Date published: Feb 8, 2019

CV 18-84-M-DLC-JCL (D. Mont. Feb. 8, 2019)

Opinion

CV 18-84-M-DLC-JCL

02-08-2019

ANTHONY E. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. TECHLAW, INC., Defendant.

Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge United States District Court

ORDER

United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch entered his Findings and Recommendation on January 10, 2019, recommending that the Court deny Brown's motion for default judgment. (Doc. 17.) Brown failed to timely object to the Findings and Recommendations, and so waived the right to de novo review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court reviews for clear error those findings and recommendations to which no party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-53 (1985). Clear error exists if the Court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." Wash. Mut., Inc. v. United States, 856 F.3d 711, 721 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).

Having reviewed the Findings and Recommendation (Doc. 17), the Court finds no clear error in Judge Lynch's recommendation that Brown's motion be denied. Assuming that Brown's motion was a procedurally proper motion for entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), the motion was premature.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is ADOPTED IN FULL; and

(2) Brown's motion for default judgment (Doc. 15) is DENIED.

DATED this 8^th day of February, 2019.

/s/_________

Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge

United States District Court