UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TAFT R. LEWIS,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.: 14-13146

Honorable Matthew F. Leitman

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

 

HON. MARGIE BRAXTON, et. al. 

Defendants. 

__________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT [R. 61, 62, 63, 64]

Plaintiff Taft Lewis, proceeding pro se, brings this action against 

Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Summonses were issued and 

certificates of service were filed for all but two defendants, showing service 

by certified mail on August 18, 2014, making the served defendants’

responsive pleadings due on or before September 11, 2014. [R. 20-27]; 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d);12(a)(1)(A)(i). The served defendants all filed 

responsive pleadings and/or dispositive motions, albeit not all within the 

proscribed time frame. [R. 14, 16, 28, 30, 31, 34, 36, 37, 52]. 

Well after Tommy Westhoff, Hussien Farhat, Mack Carpenter and 

Carpenter Law filed their responsive pleadings, Lewis moved for a Clerk’s 

Entry of Default against them due to their untimely responsive filings. [R. 

2:14-cv-13146-MFL-EAS Doc # 74 Filed 07/14/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 456
2

38, 39, 54, 55]. The requests were denied. [R. 40, 41, 54, 55]. Lewis now 

moves for an entry of default judgment on the same grounds. [R. 61, 62, 

63, 64]. Those motions should be denied as well.

Rule 55 permits entry of default when “a party against whom a 

judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise 

defend.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). While a former version of this Rule required 

the party to plead or defend “as provided by these rules,” that clause was 

omitted in 2007 to make clear that a default should not be entered when a 

party has done “something showing an intent to defend, but that act was 

not specifically described by the rules.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 Advisory 

Committee Notes to the 2007 Amendments. Westhoff, Farhat, Mack 

Carpenter and Carpenter Law have showed intent to defend by filing 

answers and motions to dismiss, so the untimely nature of those actions 

alone is insufficient to permit default to be entered against them. 

Since default would be improper against these defendants, so would 

be default judgment. See Lewis v. Parker, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105442, 

at *4-5, 2014 WL 3735244 (E.D. Mich. June 24, 2014) (collecting cases) 

adopted by 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102982, 2014 WL 3735247 (E.D. Mich. 

July 29, 2014). 

2:14-cv-13146-MFL-EAS Doc # 74 Filed 07/14/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 457
3

For these reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that Lewis’s requests 

for default judgment against defendants Westhoff, Farhat, Mack Carpenter 

and Carpenter Law [R. 61, 62, 63, 64] be DENIED. 

Dated: July 13, 2015 s/Elizabeth A. Stafford 

Detroit, Michigan ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Either party to this action may object to and seek review of this 

Report and Recommendation, but must act within fourteen days of service 

of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 

72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any 

further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. 

Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 

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

fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all objections that party 

might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Secretary of 

HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers 

Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). A copy of any objection 

must be served upon this Magistrate Judge. E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2). 

Each objection must be labeled as “Objection #1,” “Objection #2,” 

etc., and must specify precisely the provision of this Report and 

2:14-cv-13146-MFL-EAS Doc # 74 Filed 07/14/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 458
4

Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than fourteen days after 

service of objections, the non-objecting party must file a response to 

the objections, specifically addressing each issue raised in the objections in 

the same order and labeled as “Response to Objection #1,” “Response to 

Objection #2,” etc. The response must be concise and proportionate in 

length and complexity to the objections, but there is otherwise no page 

limitation. If the Court determines that any objections are without merit, it 

may rule without awaiting the response.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF 

System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on July 13, 2015.

s/Marlena Williams 

MARLENA WILLIAMS

Case Manager

2:14-cv-13146-MFL-EAS Doc # 74 Filed 07/14/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 459