Opinion
Civil Action 9:21-cv-297
08-16-2023
ANTHONY BERNARD WINGFIELD v. ADESUNKANMI ADEKOYA
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Anthony Bernard Wingfield, an inmate currently confined at the Michael Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Adesunkanmi Adekoya.
The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.
Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 9). This Report considers such motion.
Analysis
Rule 55, FED. R. CIV. P. provides in pertinent part:
When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party's default.
Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Default Judgment against the Defendant. The Defendant, however, has filed an Answer to Plaintiff's complaint. Thus, Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is not proper. Accordingly, the motion should be denied.
Recommendation
Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No.9) should be denied.
Objections
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge's report, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C).
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72.