Reported / Citable
Background
Pro se plaintiff Ryan Scott Coe brought a diversity action against Daniel D. Waite, alleging violations of several federal criminal statutes—18 U.S.C. §§ 666, 1343, 1344, and 1951—and the Uniform Commercial Code. Waite did not appear or respond to service.
Coe moved for default judgment. Following a hearing, Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter recommended denying the motion without prejudice and allowing Coe to amend his complaint in accordance with the report and recommendation. Coe said he would not object, and no objections were filed.
The Court’s Holding
District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation after review. The court denied Coe’s motion for default judgment without prejudice to refiling after amendment consistent with the report.
The court gave Coe 20 days to file an amended complaint that states a plausible claim for relief and supplies the factual detail identified in the report and recommendation. If Coe does not timely amend, the court directed him to file a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of voluntary dismissal.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant’s failure to appear does not automatically entitle a plaintiff to default judgment.
- The complaint must still state a plausible claim for relief before default judgment may be entered.
- The denial was without prejudice, leaving Coe an opportunity to amend and renew his request.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that default procedure does not excuse deficient pleading. Even when a defendant has not appeared, a court may deny default judgment if the operative complaint does not plausibly establish a basis for relief.