Monsegue v. Griffith et al

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND #23 RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff's #13 Motion for Default Judgment is denied. All deadlines in this case remain stayed pending further Order from the Court. Signed by District Judge R. Stan Baker on 11/17/2022. (ca)

Download PDF
Case 4:22-cv-00081-RSB-CLR Document 25 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION FRANK D. MONSEGUE, SR.. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:22-cv-81 v. TRICIA GRIFFITH, et al., Defendants. ORDER After a careful de novo review of the entire record, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, (doc. 23), to which plaintiff has filed an objection, (doc. 24). The Magistrate Judge recommended that Monsegue’s Motion for Default Judgment, (doc. 13), be denied because “there is no indication that any of the defendants who have not responded [to his Complaint] have been served or waived service.” (Doc. 23, p. 3.) Monsegue’s Objection states the allegedly defaulted defendants, Greg A. Cohen, Jovel Yanalta, and Alexis DeNuccio, “had knowledge of this Civil Action claim thru: (1) [t]he summons issued by the clerk of court, (2) [t]he [c]ourt [w]ebsite[,] (3) Plaintiff [e]-mails[,] (4) Plaintiff USPS mail (Letter to a Cease and Desist)[,] (5) Defendant Tricia Griffith[,] (6) Certitifcate of Service filed by [Defendant Griffith’s counsel] Attorney Ryan E. Harbin . . . .” (Doc. 24 at 1.) None of those methods of “notice” is sufficient to effect service, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). Accordingly, Defendant’s Objection is OVERRULED, (doc. 24), the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED, (doc. 23), and Monsegue’s Motion for Default Judgment is DENIED, (doc. 13). Case 4:22-cv-00081-RSB-CLR Document 25 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 2 The Magistrate Judge also stayed all deadlines in this case, sua sponte, pending resolution of the questions concerning service upon several defendants. (Doc. 23, pp. 6-7.) Monsegue objects to the Magistrate Judge’s acknowledgement that he did not file a formal opposition to defendant Griffith’s Motion to Stay, asserting that he stated his opposition in the Rule 26(f) Report. (See doc. 24, p. 1.) However, the Magistrate Judge expressly noted Monsegue’s opposition in the parties’ Rule 26(f) report. (Doc. 23, p. 5 (explaining that stating opposition in the report “does not excuse [Monsegue’s] obligation to respond to the motion and [his opposition] does not assert any valid grounds to oppose the stay.”) Because the stay is non-dispositive, the Court reviews the ruling to determine whether it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also Jackson v. Deen, 2013 WL 3991793, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 2, 2013). Because the Magistrate Judge’s stay, pending determination of whether any defendant other than Griffith has been served, was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, Monsegue’s Objection is OVERRULED. (Doc. 24.) All deadlines in this case remain STAYED pending further Order from the Court. SO ORDERED, this 17th day of November, 2022. R. STAN BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?