Bailey v. Doyle et al
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT. Signed by Chief Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 8/30/17. (Anderson, S. Thomas)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
MICHAEL B. BAILEY,
ASHLEY DOYLE, et al.,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND FOR
Before the Court are the July 25, 2017 motions of Plaintiff Michael Doyle, proceeding
pro se, for an entry of default and for a default judgment against Defendants Ashley Doyle,
Jacqueline McDougle, and Thomas Shell. (ECF Nos. 24 & 25.) Defendants Shell and Doyle
have filed responses in opposition. (ECF No. 29 & 30.) An entry of default is appropriate
“[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or
otherwise defend.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Defendants Shell and Doyle have not failed to plead
or otherwise defend. Shell has filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 18), while Doyle has sought
and received from this Court an extension of time to file her answer (ECF No. 28).
Defendant McDougle, on the other hand, has not been served.
The summons was
returned unexecuted on July 24, 2017, and no waiver of service has been filed. (See ECF No.
22.) “Due process requires proper service of process for a court to have jurisdiction to adjudicate
the rights of the parties.” O.J. Distributing, Inc. v. Hornell Brewing Co., Inc., 340 F.3d 345, 353
(6th Cir. 2003). Here, “[P]laintiff is not entitled to a default judgment here because [McDougle]
ha[s] not been served with the summons and complaint.” Lentz v. Loxton, No. 12-12037, 2013
WL 2295456, at *3 (E.D. Mich. May 24, 2013). For these reasons, Plaintiff’s requests for an
entry of default and a default judgment are not proper, and his Motions are DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: August 30, 2017
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?