Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

LABRECK v. ESPOSITO, 11-11328. (2013)

Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan Number: infdco20130830a42 Visitors: 19
Filed: Jul. 24, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 24, 2013
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT MARK A. RANDON, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for entry of default judgment against Paul Anthony Esposito (Dkt. No. 49). Plaintiff says Esposito failed to "plead or otherwise defend within the prescribed time[.]" Because Esposito: (1) filed a responsive pleading on July 18, 2013; and, (2) a prisoner cannot obtain a default judgment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1997e(g)(1), this Magis
More

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

MARK A. RANDON, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for entry of default judgment against Paul Anthony Esposito (Dkt. No. 49). Plaintiff says Esposito failed to "plead or otherwise defend within the prescribed time[.]" Because Esposito: (1) filed a responsive pleading on July 18, 2013; and, (2) a prisoner cannot obtain a default judgment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(1), this Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's motion be DENIED.

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation, but are required to act within fourteen (14) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec'y of HHS, 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). The filing of objections which raise some issues, but fail to raise others with specificity, will not preserve all the objections a party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec'y of HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.

Within fourteen (14) days of service of any objecting party's timely filed objections, the opposing party may file a response. The response shall be no more than 20 pages in length unless, by motion and order, the page limit is extended by the court. The response shall address each issue contained within the objections specifically and in the same order raised.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer