THORNTON v. ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY UNIFIED GOVERNMENT, et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying 27 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 06/06/2018(CCL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
BRIAN KEITH THORNTON,

*

Plaintiff,

*

vs.

*

UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF ATHENSCLARKE COUNTY, GEORGIA,

*

CASE NO. 3:17-CV-112 (CDL)

*
Defendant.
*
O R D E R
Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Brian Keith
Thornton’s motion for relief from the judgment (ECF No. 27).

As

discussed below, the motion is denied.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff
discrimination
Unified

Brian

Keith

action

Government

of

Thornton

against

his

brought

former

Athens-Clarke

this

employment

employer,

County,

Georgia

Defendant
(“ACC”),

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e et seq.

ACC contends that it reached a settlement with

Thornton’s attorney, and it filed a counterclaim to enforce that
settlement.

Thornton did not answer or otherwise respond to the

counterclaim, and the Clerk entered a default as to Thornton on
November 17, 2017.
on December 8, 2017.

ACC’s motion for default judgment followed
Thornton did not respond, and the Court

granted the motion for default judgment on January 25, 2018.
Order Granting Mot. for Default J., ECF No. 15.
The Court concluded that by his default, Thornton admitted
the

well-pleaded

allegations

of

fact

in

ACC’s

counterclaim.

Those allegations of fact established that there was a binding
settlement agreement between Thornton and ACC.
id.

See generally

The Court ordered ACC to provide Thornton a release, directed

Thornton

to

sign

that

release,

and

ordered

ACC

to

give

the

settlement funds to Thornton once it received the signed release.
Thornton did not file a motion in this Court in response to the
order granting ACC’s motion for default judgment.1

Thornton did not

sign

the

the

release,

and

ACC

moved

to

enforce

settlement.

Thornton did not respond to the motion to enforce the settlement.
The Court granted the motion and ordered the Clerk to enter final

judgment in favor of ACC and against Thornton on Thornton’s
claims and on ACC’s counterclaim.
Mot.

to

Enforce

Settlement,

judgment on May 18, 2018.
Thornton
judgment.

filed

a

ECF

See generally Order Granting

No.

25.

The

entered

J., ECF No. 26.
motion

for

reconsideration

of

the

The Court “may set aside a final default judgment

under [Federal] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 60(b).”
P. 55(c).

Clerk

Fed. R. Civ.

Under Rule 60(b), the Court may relieve a party from

1

Thornton did attempt to appeal the Court’s order granting ACC’s
motion for default judgment.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction because there was no final judgment to
appeal at that time.

2

a final judgment for “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect; [or] (2) newly discovered evidence that, with
reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to
move for a new trial under Rule 59(b).”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

Thornton makes two main arguments in support of his present
motion.
motion

First, he argues that he did not respond to ACC’s
for

a

default

judgment

because

the

Court

did

not

explicitly instruct him to do so and because he was preoccupied
by some family troubles while the motion was pending.

The Court

construes this argument as seeking to set aside the judgment due
to

excusable

defaulting

neglect.

party

“To

must

show

establish
that:

‘(1)

excusable
it

had

neglect,
a

the

meritorious

defense that might have affected the outcome; (2) granting the
motion

would

not

result

in

prejudice

to

the

non-defaulting

party; and (3) a good reason existed for failing to reply to the
complaint.’”

Tara Prods., Inc. v. Hollywood Gadgets, Inc., 449

F. App’x 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (quoting In re
Worldwide Web Systems, Inc., 328 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir.
2003)).

If the defaulting party offers “no good reason for

failing to respond to the complaint . . ., excusable neglect
cannot be established.”

Id.

Thornton offered no reason at all for his failure to answer
ACC’s counterclaim.

For that reason alone, Thornton did not

demonstrate excusable neglect sufficient to support his motion

3

to set aside the default judgment.

Thornton also offered no

good reason for failing to respond to ACC’s motion for default
judgment.

Thornton does not argue that he was not served with

ACC’s motions.

He appears to argue, however, that he did not

realize that he should respond to ACC’s motions because the
Court did not instruct him to respond.

The Court’s local rules

permit response briefs and set a deadline for such briefs.
M.D. Ga. R. 7.2.
to

procedural

See

Pro se litigants like Thornton must “conform

rules,

including

deadlines.”

Bonilla

v.

U.S.

Dep’t of Justice, 535 F. App’x 891, 893 (11th Cir. 2013) (per
curiam).

If Thornton wished to oppose ACC’s motions, he should

have filed response briefs as permitted by the local rules.
As to Thornton’s argument that he could not respond to
ACC’s motions due to some family issues, the Court notes that
less

than

a

week

after

ACC

filed

its

motion

for

default

judgment, Thornton applied (albeit unsuccessfully) for a Clerk’s
entry of default as to all Defendants.

The Court is thus not

convinced that Thornton was unable to litigate this case while
ACC’s motion for default judgment was pending.
reasons,

the

Court

finds

that

Thornton

For all of these

failed

to

establish

excusable neglect.
Thornton’s second argument in support of his present motion
is that he has documentary evidence showing that he rejected
ACC’s settlement offer.

Thornton does not assert that this

4

evidence is newly discovered.

And, although Thornton contends

that he briefly misplaced this evidence at some point in the
past, he does not argue that this evidence (or at least an
affidavit regarding the facts within his personal knowledge) was
unavailable
judgment

or

during

the

the

motion

pendency
to

of

enforce

the
the

motion

for

settlement.

default
The

previously unsubmitted evidence is therefore not a valid basis
for Thornton’s motion.
CONCLUSION
As discussed above, Thornton did not present a valid basis
for setting aside the default judgment against him.

His motion

for relief from the judgment (ECF No. 27) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 6th day of June, 2018.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

5