United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
DANIEL L. BRADFORD, Plaintiff,
CAREN ALBERCOOK et al., Defendants.
DISTRICT JUDGE TERRENCE G. BERG MAGISTRATE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
K. MAJZOUB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Daniel L. Bradford filed this pro se prisoner civil
rights action on June 15, 2016, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, alleging that Defendants Caren Albercook, Connie Ives,
James Richardson,  and Eric Walton denied him adequate
medical care in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.
(Docket no. 1.) This matter is before the Court on
Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment. (Docket no. 27.)
Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff's Motion. This
action has been referred to the undersigned for all pretrial
purposes. (Docket no. 18.) The Court has reviewed the
pleadings, dispenses with oral argument on the Motion
pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f),
and issues this Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
reasons that follow, it is recommended that Plaintiff's
Motion for Default Judgment (docket no. 27) be
Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, he asserts that
(1) he has stated an arguable claim against Defendants, and
(2) he has honored the “time lines” set by the
Court, and Defendants should be held to the same standard.
(Docket no. 27.) While not explicitly stated, Plaintiff
appears to seek default judgment on the basis that Defendants
did not respond to the Amended Complaint within the time
allotted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12.
Plaintiff's Motion fails on both substantive and
procedural grounds. First, in suits brought by prisoners
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a defendant may waive the right
to respond to the complaint, without such waiver constituting
an admission of the allegations in the complaint. 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(g)(1). Moreover, the Court has not required
Defendants to file an answer to the Amended Complaint
(see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2)), and the
dispositive motion deadline has not yet passed. Procedurally,
Plaintiff is not entitled to a default judgment under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 55 because he did not first seek
entry of a default from the clerk of the court. Heard v.
Caruso, 351 F. App'x 1, 15-16 (6th Cir. 2009) (it is
procedurally improper for a party to move for entry of a
default judgment without first seeking entry of a default
from the clerk of the court). Accordingly, Plaintiff's
Motion for Default Judgment should be denied.
NOTICE TO PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS
parties to this action may object to and seek review of this
Report and Recommendation, but are required to act within
fourteen (14) days of service of a copy hereof as provided
for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Eastern District of
Michigan Local Rule 72.1(d). Failure to file specific
objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of
appeal. Thomas v.Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985);
Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs.,
932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); U.S. v. Walters, 638
F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing of objections which
raise some issues but fail to raise others with specificity,
will not preserve all the objections a party might have to
this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec'y of
Health & Human Servs., 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). Pursuant to
E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be
served upon this Magistrate Judge.
objections must be labeled as “Objection #1, ”
“Objection #2, ” etc. Any objection must recite
precisely the provision of this Report and
Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than fourteen
days after service of an objection, the opposing party must
file a concise response proportionate to the objections in
length and complexity. The response must specifically address
each issue raised in the objections, in the same order and
labeled as “Response to Objection #1, ”
“Response to Objection #2, ” etc.
 Plaintiff named “J.
Richardson” as a defendant in the Complaint, who has
since been identified as James Richardson. (See
docket nos. 1, 15.)
 Plaintiff's prayer for relief asks
the Court to “Grant this Motion for Summary
Judgement.” (Docket no. 27 at 2.) The Court construes
this as a typographical error in light of the fact that the
title of the Motion and the Proof of Service indicate that it
is a Motion for Default Judgment. ...