Coleman v. Devan

Filing 37

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 35 Motion for Clerk's Entry of Default; GRANTED to the extent it seeks a Clerks entry of default against Anderson and DENIED to the extent it seeks a Clerks entry of default against M&T Bank. The Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the extent it seeks a default judgment against either Defendant. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 4/10/2019. (c/m 4/11/19 jnls, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Chambers of
George L. Russell, III
United States District Judge

101 West Lombard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
410-962-4055

April 10, 2019
MEMORANDUM TO PARTIES RE:

Edwin C. Coleman v. Mark S. Devan, et al.
Civil Action Nos. GLR-17-2053; GLR-18-742

Dear Parties:
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Edwin C. Coleman’s1 Motion for Clerk’s Entry of
Default and Default Judgment (ECF No. 35) against Defendants M&T Bank and John W.
Anderson. Upon consideration of the Motion and M&T Bank’s Opposition, (ECF No. 36), the
Court will grant in part and deny in part the Motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) provides for an entry of default when “a party against
whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend.” Here,
M&T Bank has filed a Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 32), and is therefore not in default. The Court
will therefore deny the Motion as to M&T Bank.
On February 4, 2019, the U.S. Marshal served process on Anderson. (ECF No. 27). To date,
the Court has no record that Anderson has answered or otherwise defended this case.2 The Court
will therefore grant the Motion to the extent it seeks a Clerk’s entry of default against Anderson.
A clerk’s entry of default under Rule 55(a) is a prerequisite for default judgment under Rule
55(b). Because the Clerk has not yet entered any default in this case, the Court will deny the Motion
without prejudice to the extent it seeks a default judgment against either Defendant.
For the foregoing reasons, Coleman’s Motion for Clerk’s Entry of Default and Default
Judgment (ECF No. 35) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Motion is
GRANTED to the extent it seeks a Clerk’s entry of default against Anderson and DENIED to the
extent it seeks a Clerk’s entry of default against M&T Bank. The Motion is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE to the extent it seeks a default judgment against either Defendant.

1

The Court notes Coleman refers to himself once as Charles Muhammad in the Motion but
otherwise continues to identify himself as Edwin C. Coleman, including on the signature lines for
the Motion and Certificate of Service. (ECF No. 35). The Court will therefore continue to refer to
him as Coleman.
2
On February 6, 2019, an Assistant Attorney General purporting to represent Anderson filed
a letter suggesting Anderson is not a Defendant in this case and that the summons was “mistakenly”
served on him. (ECF No. 28). To date, the Court has no record that any counsel has entered an
appearance on behalf of Anderson.

Despite the informal nature of this memorandum, it shall constitute an Order of the Court,
and the Clerk is directed to docket it accordingly and mail a copy to Coleman at his address of
record.

Very truly yours,
/s/
George L. Russell, III
United States District Judge