UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES ROBERT BATES,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 15-10109

 Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

 

OBELL WINN, et al., 

Defendants. 

__________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AS TO OBELL WINN [R. 29]

Plaintiff James Robert Bates, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed 

his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Obell Winn, among others, 

for violation of his Eight Amendment rights. [R. 1]. The Honorable Patrick 

J. Duggan referred the case to this Court to resolve all pretrial matters 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). Before the Court is Bates’s 

motion for default judgment as to Winn for “failure to answer or otherwise 

defend....” [R. 29, PgID 185]. The motion lacks merit.

The usual procedural rules for answering complaints do not apply in § 

1983 actions. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 200 (2007). Specifically,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(1), a defendant may waive the right to 

reply to an action brought by a prisoner under § 1983, and such waiver 

2:15-cv-10109-PJD-EAS Doc # 31 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 188
does not constitute an admission of the allegations pleaded in the 

complaint. In such cases “[n]o relief shall be granted to the plaintiff unless 

a reply has been filed” by the defendant. § 1997e(g)(1). Moreover, 

contrary to Bates’s contention, Winn is defending this action; he filed a 

timely motion for summary judgment. [See R. 24]. Therefore, the Court 

RECOMMENDS DENYING Bates’s motion for default judgment [R. 29]. 

s/Elizabeth A. Stafford

ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: June 8, 2015

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 

2

2:15-cv-10109-PJD-EAS Doc # 31 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 189
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 

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 June 8, 2015.

s/Marlena Williams

MARLENA WILLIAMS

Case Manager

3

2:15-cv-10109-PJD-EAS Doc # 31 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 190