Casey H. Perry v. Susan K. DeClercq et al.

Perry · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division · January 5, 2026 · No. 24-10194

Summary

This Report and Recommendation addresses Casey H. Perry’s motions for default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. The magistrate judge recommends denying the motions because the Clerk did not enter default and a defendant filed an answer with affirmative defenses. The document explains the procedures and deadlines for objecting under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and the Eastern District of Michigan’s local rules.

Holdings

  1. A motion for default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) is procedurally improper unless the plaintiff first obtains an entry of default under Rule 55(a).
  2. Default judgment was not appropriate where the defendant had filed an answer to the amended complaint with affirmative defenses.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff could obtain default judgment without first obtaining an entry of default from the Clerk's Office.
  2. Whether default judgment was appropriate where a defendant had filed an answer to the amended complaint.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (8)

  • Heard v. Caruso, 351 F. App'x 1, 15–16 (6th Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • Devlin v. Kalm, 493 F. App'x 678, 685–86 (6th Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • Wilson v. Stewart, Case No. 1:25-cv-10483, 2025 WL 2858910, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 15, 2025)(followed)
  • Wilson v. Stewart, 2025 WL 2857995 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 8, 2025)(followed)
  • Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985)(followed)
  • Howard v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991)(followed)
  • Willis v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991)(followed)
  • Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…