IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

EDWARD LEE GONZALES and MICHELE 

RENEE GONZALES,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LARISSA M. HILE, et al.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-227-MJT-CLS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Doc. #57)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules of Court for the Assignment of Duties to 

United States Magistrate Judges, the district court referred this proceeding to the undersigned 

magistrate judge to conduct all pretrial proceedings, to enter findings of fact and recommend 

disposition on case-dispositive matters, and to determine non-dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1); E.D. TEX. LOC. R. CV-72. 

I. Discussion

On December 1, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Default Judgment against all 

Defendants. (Doc. #57).1 Plaintiffs do not address default judgment in the body of this filing, 

but rather request default judgment against all Defendants in the motion’s title. (Id. at 1.) 

Construing pro se Plaintiffs’ filings liberally, the undersigned finds two fatal issues with

Plaintiffs’ request for default judgments.

1 The clerk of the court docketed this filing twice as it also contained Plaintiffs’ response to former Defendants Hile 

and Seeney’s Motion to Sever. (Doc. #58.) The court has addressed that motion and Plaintiffs’ response in its 

previous order granting severance. (Doc. #60.)

Case 1:23-cv-00227-MJT-CLS Document 74 Filed 01/12/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

1058
2

First, default judgments are only appropriate against a party that has been properly served 

but failed to file a timely responsive pleading. FED. R. CIV. P. 55(a); see Ayati-Ghaffari v. 

Dimon, No. 4:19-cv-533-ALM-CAN, 2020 WL 1901087, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 2, 2020), R&R 

adopted, No. 4:19-CV-533, 2020 WL 548683 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2020). Here, all served parties 

have filed timely responsive pleadings under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Docs. ##6, 10, 44.) 

Accordingly, any request for default judgment is moot. Second, even if their request for default 

judgment had merit, Plaintiffs fail to follow the necessary procedure to request default judgment 

under federal law. FED. R. CIV. P. 55(b).

II. Recommendation

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends DENYING Plaintiffs’ Motion 

for Default Judgment (doc. #57) as moot.

III. Objections

Within fourteen (14) days after service of the magistrate judge’s report, any party must 

serve and file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate 

judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding 

or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the 

place in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination is 

found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

magistrate judge is not specific.

Failure to file specific, written objections will bar the party from appealing the 

unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted by 

the district court, except upon grounds of plain error, provided that the party has been served 

with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. Douglass v. United 

Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on 

Case 1:23-cv-00227-MJT-CLS Document 74 Filed 01/12/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

1059
3

other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen 

days). 

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 12th day of January, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00227-MJT-CLS Document 74 Filed 01/12/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

1060