IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : 

Plaintiff, : 

vs. : CA 10-0156-CG-C 

MICHAEL B. BENDOLPH, : 

Defendant. 

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the undersigned for issuance of a report and 

recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B), on the plaintiff=s motion 

for judgment by default (Doc. 10). Plaintiff=s motion is due to be GRANTED. 

An entry of default was entered by the Clerk of Court as to the defendant 

Michael B. Bendolph on June 17, 2010 (Doc. 9) in accordance with Rule 55(a) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Compare Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a) (AWhen a 

party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead 

or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk 

must enter the party=s default.@) with Doc. 7 (process receipt and return reflecting 

service of summons and complaint on Bendolph on May 14, 2010) and Doc. 9 

(clerk=s entry of default against Bendolph Afor failure to plead, answer or 

otherwise defend.@). 

Case 1:10-cv-00156-CG-C Document 12 Filed 06/25/10 Page 1 of 3
2 

In now making its motion for judgment by default, plaintiff has attached the 

declaration of its attorney, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1746, regarding the amount 

due. (Doc. 10, Declaration Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1746 of Amount Due) This 

proper unsworn declaration establishes that the amount due from Bendolph to 

plaintiff on the debt set forth in the complaint is the sum of $14,770.45 (i.e., 

principal of $5,533.00, prejudgment interest at 7% per annum in the amount of 

$9,237.45 as of March 31, 2010), plus prejudgment interest from March 31, 2010, 

through the date of judgment, and post judgment interest at the legal rate of 

0.30% pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 1961, 

until paid in full, and court costs. (See id.) Accordingly, it is recommended that 

judgment by default be entered in plaintiff=s favor against the defendant in the 

foregoing amount. 

DONE this the 24th day of June, 2010. 

 s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00156-CG-C Document 12 Filed 06/25/10 Page 2 of 3
3 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS AND 

 RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION, AND 

 FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

l. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything in it 

must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this document, file specific written objections 

with the Clerk of this court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the district judge of 

anything in the recommendation and will bar an attack, on appeal, of the factual findings of the 

Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988); 

Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc). The procedure for challenging the 

findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge is set out in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 

1, 1997), which provides that: 

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a magistrate judge in a 

dispositive matter, that is, a matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(A), by filing a 

>Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge=s Recommendation= within ten days1

 after 

being served with a copy of the recommendation, unless a different time is established by 

order. The statement of objection shall specify those portions of the recommendation to 

which objection is made and the basis for the objection. The objecting party shall 

submit to the district judge, at the time of filing the objection, a brief setting forth the 

party=s arguments that the magistrate judge=s recommendation should be reviewed de 

novo and a different disposition made. It is insufficient to submit only a copy of the 

original brief submitted to the magistrate judge, although a copy of the original brief may 

be submitted or referred to and incorporated into the brief in support of the objection. 

Failure to submit a brief in support of the objection may be deemed an abandonment of 

the objection. 

A magistrate judge's recommendation cannot be appealed to a Court of Appeals; only the 

district judge's order or judgment can be appealed. 

2. Transcript (applicable Where Proceedings Tape Recorded). Pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. ' 1915 and FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b), the Magistrate Judge finds that the tapes and original records in 

this case are adequate for purposes of review. Any party planning to object to this recommendation, but 

unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial determination that transcription is 

necessary is required before the United States will pay the cost of the transcript.

 1 Effective December 1, 2009, the time for filing written objections was extended to A14 

days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition[.]@ Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). 

Case 1:10-cv-00156-CG-C Document 12 Filed 06/25/10 Page 3 of 3