Strickland v. Chambers et al

Filing 25

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that the 21 Motion for entry of default should be de nied re 1 Complaint filed by Antonio Lamar Strickland. Objections to R&R due by 6/20/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 6/3/24. (wwp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBLIN DIVISION
ANTONIO LAMAR STRICKLAND,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN BRIAN CHAMBERS and
DEPUTY WARDEN TRAVIS PROSSER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CV 323-098

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, an inmate at Ware State Prison in Waycross, Georgia, brought the abovecaptioned civil case and is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Before the Court is
Plaintiff’s motion1 for entry of default. (Doc. no. 21.) Because Plaintiff’s motion is baseless,
the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s motion be DENIED.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), a party is entitled to entry of default when it has shown an
adverse party has failed to plead or otherwise defend against a complaint through affidavit or
otherwise. Entry of default against Defendants Chambers and Prosser is not warranted because
they timely responded to Plaintiff’s complaint.

On April 30, 2024, the Court granted

Defendants an extension of time through and including May 31, 2024, to respond to Plaintiff’s
complaint. (Doc. no. 19.) Defendants timely filed their answer in accordance with this
The Court acknowledges Plaintiff titled his filing “Declaration for Entry of Default.” (See doc.
no. 21, p. 1.) However, liberally construing Plaintiff’s filing, the Court finds it is appropriately construed
as a motion for entry of default. Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the CLERK to update the docket text
to reflect the filing at doc. no. 21 is a Motion for Entry of Default and REFER the same to the undersigned.
Plaintiff is advised that “if a litigant seeks judicial action of any sort . . . it must be contained within a
motion arising from a properly filed lawsuit.” In re Unsolicited Letters to Federal Judges, 120 F. Supp. 2d
1073, 1074 (S.D. Ga. 2000).
1

extended deadline. (Doc. no. 23.) Accordingly, entry of default against Defendants is not
appropriate because they have not failed to plead or otherwise defend against Plaintiff’s
complaint as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).

Thus, the Court REPORTS and

RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default be DENIED. (Doc. no. 21.)
SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of June, 2024, at Augusta,
Georgia.

2