United States of America v. Thompson

Filing 9

ORDER granting 8 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 1/24/2014. (hcic, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION

United States of America,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Anthony Thompson,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Case # 4:11-cv-1135-TLW

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Default Judgment filed by the United
States of America (“Plaintiff”). (Doc. #8). Anthony Thompson (“Defendant”) has not filed any
response or opposition to the Petitioner’s motions.
The Plaintiff instituted this action on May 10, 2011, when it filed a complaint seeking a
principal amount of $205,787.49 plus interest at 4.25 percent per annum continuing until the date
of judgment, plus costs and attorney fees as may be required by the note executed by the
Defendant. (Doc. #1). Defendant failed to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. The
Clerk entered Default as to the Defendant on August 29, 2012. Thereafter, on December 10,
2013, Petitioner filed a Motion for Default Judgment. (Doc. # 8). Plaintiff’s response to the
Motion for Default Judgment was due by December 30, 2013. Plaintiff has filed no response.

Page 1 of 3

I.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
According to the record, Defendant entered a promissory note on June 3, 2008 with the

United States to secure a Direct Consolidation loan from the U.S. Department of Education
(“Department”). (Doc. #1-1). The loan was disbursed on July 11, 2008, at 4.25 percent interest
per annum. The Department demanded payment according to the terms of the note, and the
borrower defaulted on the obligation on May 11, 2009. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has failed
to satisfy his obligations pursuant to the promissory note ahd has failed to answer or otherwise
respond to the complaint. Petitioner premises its Motion for Default Judgment on this failure.
“Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the entry of a default
judgment when a defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend in accordance with the Rules.”
United States v. Moradi, 673 F.2d 725, 727 (4th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). “Although the
clear policy of the Rules is to encourage dispositions of claims on their merits…, trial judges are
vested with discretion, which must be liberally exercised, in entering such judgments and in
providing relief therefrom.” Id. (citations omitted).
II.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff filed its complaint on May 10, 2011. More than two and a half years have passed

since the Petitioner its complaint, and over a month has passed since the Plaintiff filed its Motion
for Default Judgment. The Defendant has had ample time to answer or otherwise respond in this
matter. Thus, after careful consideration, the Court concludes that Petitioner’s Motion for
Default Judgment should be granted.

Page 2 of 3

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, Petitioner’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. # 8) is
GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
TERRY L. WOOTEN
Chief United States District Judge
January 24, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Page 3 of 3