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

On November 12, 2014, Plaintiff Parrish Redd filed a pro se civil complaint

alleging copyright infringement. Despite numerous denials of motions for default

judgment against the various Defendants, the Court is now faced with three more:

-Plaintiff’s 5 Motion for Default Judgment as to Chris Hugan and Marty Peters th

[Doc. #60].

-Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Default Judgment as to Terrance Vails [Doc.

#65].

-Plaintiff’s Second Emergency Motion for Default Judgment as to Vails [Doc.

#67].

These motions have been referred for Reports and Recommendations under 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). I recommend that all three be DENIED.

-1-

2:14-cv-14340-MOB-RSW Doc # 72 Filed 01/31/16 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 448
DISCUSSION

All three motions were filed before Judge Battani’s order of June 17, 2015 [Doc.

#70], in which she barred Plaintiff from filing any further motions for entry of default or

default judgment without leave of the Court. Nevertheless, these motions for default

judgment are repetitive, and raise the same issues regarding Hugan, Peters, and Vails that

have been rejected time and time again. In my Report and Recommendation that Judge

Battani accepted on June 17, 2015, I stated:

“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.”

In fact, on the same day that Judge Battani entered her order, I ordered Plaintiff to

show cause in writing why filing the three motions that are the subject of this Order has

not violated Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b), and why he should not be sanctioned under Fed.R.Civ.P.

11(c) [Doc. #69]. Rather than filing a response, he filed yet another motion for entry of

default against Hugan and Peters [Doc. #71].1

We’ve been through this too many times. The Court has already ruled that Plaintiff

is not entitled to a Clerk’s entry of default or a default judgment, and has clearly

explained the basis of those rulings to Plaintiff. The present motions should be denied in

short order.

 By separate order, I have stricken that motion, since Plaintiff did not obtain leave 1

of the Court before filing it. 

-2-

2:14-cv-14340-MOB-RSW Doc # 72 Filed 01/31/16 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 449
CONCLUSION

I recommend that Plaintiff’s motions for default judgment [Doc. #60] and for

Clerk’s entry of default [Doc. #65 and #67] be DENIED.

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);

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.

-3-

2:14-cv-14340-MOB-RSW Doc # 72 Filed 01/31/16 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 450
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

Date: January 31, 2016

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

January 31, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.

s/C. Ciesla 

Case Manager

-4-

2:14-cv-14340-MOB-RSW Doc # 72 Filed 01/31/16 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 451