Twenty-nine months passed between the time Gary Roux filed his complaint in this case and service properly was executed on defendant Michael Lane. Another four months passed before Lane responded to the complaint. Taking an earlier cue from a magistrate judge, Roux asked for entry of default against Lane several days after Lane had responded. The district court denied the request in a marginal order and several months later entered judgment in favor of all defendants. Roux appealed and raises one issue. He claims that the district court should have granted his request for a default judgment against Lane for failure to timely answer Roux's complaint.

A more familiar scenario finds a litigant trying to avoid a default judgment entered against him, a harsher decision than what happened here. But just as we are increasingly reluctant to reverse refusals to set aside a default judgment, Phillips Medical Systems International B.V. v. Bruetman, 8 F.3d 600 (7th Cir.1993), we too are disinclined to interfere when a district judge decides to overlook a default, Dimmitt & Owens Financial, Inc. v. United States, 787 F.2d 1186, 1192 (7th Cir.1986), and review a decision not to enter a default deferentially. Whitfield v. Illinois Board of Law Examiners, 504 F.2d 474, 479 (7th Cir.1974); Duling v. Markun, 231 F.2d 833, 836 (7th Cir.1956). The district court denied Roux's request for entry of default because Lane's answer and motion to dismiss both were filed before Roux's request and showed that Lane had a meritorious defense. We cannot say that under the circumstances the district court abused its discretion.

AFFIRMED.