US v. Joseph Rash

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:05-cv-00244-RLV. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998786460]. Mailed to: Joseph Rash. [11-2098]

Appeal: 11-2098

Document: 7

Date Filed: 02/13/2012

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2098

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH W. RASH,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:05-cv-00244-RLV)

Submitted:

January 17, 2012

Decided:

February 13, 2012

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph W. Rash, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer A. Youngs, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-2098

Document: 7

Date Filed: 02/13/2012

Page: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Joseph W. Rash appeals from the entry of a default
judgment against him under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1) following
his

failure

to

plead

or

otherwise

defend

commenced against him by the United States.

the

civil

action

We affirm.

In August 2005, the United States, acting on behalf of
its agency, the Farm Service Agency (“FSA”), filed a complaint
against Rash.

The complaint alleged that Rash had defaulted on

five operating loans made to him by the predecessor agency to
the FSA.

The United States sought: a money judgment totaling

$82,447.19 for the principal and interest accrued on the loans
as of June 16, 2005 and for the interest accruing thereafter; a
judgment of foreclosure against the real and personal property
pledged by Rash as security for the loans; an order allowing the
United

States

Marshal

to

seize,

possess,

and

sell

certain

chattel property and vehicles; and costs and attorney’s fees.
Although

it

is

undisputed

that

Rash

was

properly

served, he did not file an answer or otherwise respond to the
complaint.

The United States subsequently moved for entry of

default under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).

On November 15, 2005, the

Clerk of the district court entered a default under Rule 55(a)
because Rash failed to plead or otherwise defend against the
action.

2

Appeal: 11-2098

Document: 7

Rash

Date Filed: 02/13/2012

subsequently

filed

Page: 3 of 4

for

bankruptcy

under Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code.

protection

Rash’s Chapter 12

bankruptcy case was dismissed in December 2006 for failure to
file a plan.

In January 2007, Rash again filed for bankruptcy

protection, this time under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code,
and the district court stayed the subject proceeding pending the
resolution of that bankruptcy proceeding.

In July 2011, Rash

voluntarily dismissed his Chapter 13 filing.

The United States

subsequently moved for the entry of a default judgment in the
amount

$56,204.29, *

of

and

the

Clerk

of

the

district

court

entered a default judgment under Rule 55(b)(1) by order filed
and entered on August 9, 2011.

Rash timely appealed the August

9 judgment.
Our review of the record discloses that the appeal of
the August 9 judgment is without merit.
default

judgment

calculation

of

should

the

amount

be

set

owed

on

aside
the

Rash argues that the
because
loans

is

the

FSA’s

erroneous.

Specifically, Rash claims that the FSA failed to deduct from the
amount owed over $40,000 in payments for which he asserts has
*

In the affidavit supporting its motion seeking a default
judgment, the United States averred that the $56,204.29 figure
represented the “amount outstanding on the debt addressed in
[its] complaint” and was “net of all payments received during
the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings from liquidation of
collateral, offsets of federal payments, and payments from the
Chapter 13 [Bankruptcy] Trustee.”

3

Appeal: 11-2098

Document: 7

Date Filed: 02/13/2012

Page: 4 of 4

receipts and an additional $10,000 payment.

Rash also appears

to suggest that allowing the judgment to remain intact is not
equitable because the FSA failed to seize all of the chattel
property and vehicles.

We conclude that these arguments should

be raised in a motion to set aside the default judgment in the
district court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c) and 60(b).

United

States v. U.S. Currency Totalling $3,817.49, 826 F.2d 785, 78788 (8th Cir. 1987).
Accordingly, we affirm the August 9 default judgment,
but we do so without prejudice to Rash’s filing a motion to set
aside the judgment in the district court.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4