UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PARRISH REDD,

Plaintiff, No. 14-14340

v. District Judge Marianne O. Battani

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

TERRANCE VAILS, ET AL.,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion” for clerk’s entry of default

against Defendants Chris Hugan and Marty Peters [Doc. #56], which has been referred

for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). For the reasons

set forth below, I recommend as follows:

(1) That Plaintiff’s motion be DENIED.

(2) That Plaintiff be barred from filing any further motions for entry of default or

for default judgment without first obtaining leave of the Court.

I. DISCUSSION

This is Plaintiff’s seventh motion for either entry of default or for a default

judgment as to Defendants Hugan and Peters. In Doc. Nos. 39, 43, 44, 45, and 50, the

motions have been denied. In Doc. No. 52, Plaintiff’s self-styled “third emergency

-1-

2:14-cv-14340-MOB-RSW Doc # 59 Filed 05/01/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 334
motion” for entry of default, I filed a Report and Recommendation to deny, which is

pending. Hugan and Peters filed timely answers on April 9, 2015 [Doc. #53], as noted in

the Court’s order adopting my previous Report and Recommendation. See Doc. #57.

Rather than going through another lengthy analysis, I refer Plaintiff to the discussions in

the prior Reports and Recommendations and orders of this Court. There is no basis for

either a Clerk’s entry of default or a default judgment against Defendants Hugan and

Peters. Moreover, the previous orders of this Court are law of the case.

Enough is enough. I understand that Plaintiff does not like the Court’s rulings

regarding his default motions, but he is bound by them. He cannot keep straining this

Court’s resources by filing the same thing over and over. Any further motions alleging the

default of Defendants Hugan and Peters should be permitted only by leave of the Court.

II. CONCLUSION

I therefore recommend as follows:

(1) That Plaintiff’s motion [Doc. #56] be DENIED.

(2) That Plaintiff be barred from filing any further motions for entry of default or

for default judgment without first obtaining leave of the Court.

Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen

(14) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and E.D.

Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further

right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985);

-2-

2:14-cv-14340-MOB-RSW Doc # 59 Filed 05/01/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 335
Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6 Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 th

F.2d 947 (6 Cir. 1981). Filing of objections which raise some issues but fail to raise th

others with specificity will not preserve all the objections a party might have to this

Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6 Cir. 1991); Smith th

v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6 Cir. 1987). Pursuant to th

E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate

Judge.

Within fourteen (14) days of service of any objecting party’s timely filed

objections, the opposing party may file a response. The response shall be not more than

twenty (20) pages in length unless by motion and order such page limit is extended by the

court. The response shall address specifically, and in the same order raised, each issue

contained within the objections.

s/R. Steven Whalen 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: April 13, 2015

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on

April 13, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.

s/Carolyn M. Ciesla

Case Manager 

-3-

2:14-cv-14340-MOB-RSW Doc # 59 Filed 05/01/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 336