Bennett v. MDOC et al

Filing 201

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to Serve Defendant Garland with 200 Notice of Hearing on Plaintiff's 185 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CARL BENNETT, Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-14465 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE DEFENDANT GARLAND WITH NOTICE OF HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (ECF No. 185) On October 9, 2021, the Court entered a default against Defendant Kay Garland. (See ECF Nos. 176, 177.) Plaintiff Carl Bennett has now filed a motion for default judgment against Garland. (See Mot., ECF No. 185.) On February 3, 2022, the Court issued a Notice of Hearing setting Bennett’s motion for a video hearing on March 22, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. (See Notice of Hearing, ECF No. 200.) By no later than February 14, 2022, Bennett shall serve Garland with (1) the Notice of Hearing on his motion for default judgment, (2) this order, and (3) a proposed default judgment. In addition, by no later than February 14, 2022, Bennett shall file a Certificate of Service on the docket confirming that he has served Garland with these documents. Finally, by no later than February 14, 2022, Bennett 1   shall submit the proposed default judgment to the Court through the Utilities function of CM/ECF. IT IS SO ORDERED.             s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: February 3, 2022 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on February 3, 2022, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. s/Holly A. Ryan Case Manager (313) 234-5126 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?