LEMMONS v. HOUSTON, CIV-13-494-D. (2015)
Court: District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Number: infdco20150403476
Visitors: 9
Filed: Mar. 31, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 31, 2015
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI , District Judge . Before the Court are Motions for Default Judgment [Doc. Nos. 105 and 106] filed by Plaintiff on March 10, 2015. Plaintiff seeks the entry of default judgment against Defendants Derral Schreiner and Lori Irwin. However, in a Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 101] filed February 19, 2015, Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin recommended dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Schreiner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI , District Judge . Before the Court are Motions for Default Judgment [Doc. Nos. 105 and 106] filed by Plaintiff on March 10, 2015. Plaintiff seeks the entry of default judgment against Defendants Derral Schreiner and Lori Irwin. However, in a Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 101] filed February 19, 2015, Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin recommended dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Schreiner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and ..
More
ORDER
TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI, District Judge.
Before the Court are Motions for Default Judgment [Doc. Nos. 105 and 106] filed by Plaintiff on March 10, 2015. Plaintiff seeks the entry of default judgment against Defendants Derral Schreiner and Lori Irwin. However, in a Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 101] filed February 19, 2015, Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin recommended dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Schreiner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and against Defendant Irwin on grounds of judicial immunity. Plaintiff, therefore, is not entitled to the entry of a default judgment against these Defendants. See Judy v. Obama, ___ Fed. App'x ___, 2015 WL 427429 at *2 (10th Cir. Feb. 3, 2015) (holding that "[e]ven if the Defendants were properly served, [Plaintiff] would not have been entitiled to default judgment because the district court was required to dismiss his complaint under § 1915(e)(2)[(B)](i)-(ii) as frivolous and for failing to state a claim for relief"). Moreover, Plaintiff did not object to the Report and Recommendation and the Court has adopted the findings set forth therein as to these Defendants, see Order [Doc. No. 109], rendering Plaintiff's motions for default judgment moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motions for Default Judgment [Doc. Nos. 105 and 106] are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
