Reported / Citable
Background
Plaintiff Blaek Betts filed a pro se complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against SportsClips Haircuts in May 2025. The case was referred to the magistrate judge. On May 1, 2026, Plaintiff requested entry of default judgment, which the Clerk entered on May 4, 2026. On May 6, 2026—just two days after default was entered—Defendant King Collyns, LLC d/b/a SportsClips filed a motion to set aside the entry of default and to file a responsive pleading out of time.
The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation on June 15, 2026, recommending that the default be set aside and that the defendant be given fourteen days to file both a waiver of service and a responsive pleading. Plaintiff was notified of her right to file objections but did not do so.
The Court’s Holding
The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in full. The court found no plain error in the magistrate judge’s reasoning and approved setting aside the entry of default judgment. Applying the “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” standard of review (applicable when no objections are filed), the court found the recommendation sound.
The court issued a final order granting Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default and Motion to File Responsive Pleading Out of Time. The entry of default by the Clerk was vacated, and SportsClips was ordered to file a waiver of service and responsive pleading within fourteen days.
Key Takeaways
- District courts may set aside clerk’s entries of default when appropriate, particularly when the defendant promptly objects.
- Failure by a plaintiff to file objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation results in more deferential review standards that favor adoption of the recommendation.
- Defendants should respond quickly to default judgments; prompt action increases the likelihood of successful relief.
Why It Matters
This procedural ruling demonstrates the federal courts’ willingness to set aside defaults to permit defendants their day in court. While the decision does not resolve the underlying Title VII employment discrimination claim, it ensures the case may proceed on the merits rather than by default. This reflects the judicial preference for resolving disputes on their substantive facts rather than through forfeiture.
For defendants, the case illustrates the importance of monitoring case developments closely and responding promptly to adverse procedural orders. The swift turnaround—defendant filed its motion just two days after default was entered—appears to have been instrumental in securing relief.