Shoney's North America, LLC v. Smith & Thaxton, Inc. et al

Filing 64

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Defendant Smith & Thaxton, Inc. has failed to abide by the Court's Order. For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that a default be entered against it. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 12/23/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(tmw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

SHONEY’S NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
SMITH & THAXTON, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:12-cv-00625
Judge Sharp / Knowles

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On November 18, 2013, the undersigned entered an Order noting that the attorney
previously representing Defendant Smith & Thaxton, Inc., had withdrawn from this case.
Docket No. 58. The Order further noted that the corporation could not represent itself pro se. Id.
The Order provided in relevant part:
Smith & Thaxton, Inc. shall retain counsel, who shall enter an
appearance in this action within thirty (30) days of the entry of this
Order. If Smith & Thaxton, Inc. fails to abide by the provisions of
this Order, the undersigned will recommend that a default be
entered against it.
Id.
Defendant Smith & Thaxton, Inc. has failed to abide by the Court’s Order. For the
foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that a default be entered against it.
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party has fourteen (14)
days after service of this Report and Recommendation in which to file any written objections to
this Recommendation with the District Court. Any party opposing said objections shall have
fourteen (14) days after service of any objections filed to this Report in which to file any

response to said objections. Failure to file specific objections within fourteen (14) days of
service of this Report and Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further appeal of this
Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1985),
reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

______________________________
E. CLIFTON KNOWLES
United States Magistrate Judge

2