Casey H. Perry v. Ryan Silverthon

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: January 5, 2026
• Docket: 2:24-cv-10194
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

CASEY H. PERRY, Case No. 24-10194

Plaintiff, Susan K. DeClercq v. United States District Judge

RYAN SILVERTHON, Curtis Ivy, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge Defendant. ____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENATION ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (ECF Nos. 52, 54)

On April 8, 2025, Plaintiff Casey H. Perry filed two motions for default judgment. (ECF Nos. 52, 54). In order to obtain a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b), Plaintiff had to first obtain an entry of default from the Clerk’s Office pursuant to Rule 55(a). See Heard v. Caruso, 351 F. App’x 1, 15–16 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing 10A Wright and Miller’s Federal Practice and Procedure § 2682 (3d ed. 1998)); Devlin v. Kalm, 493 F. App’x 678, 685–86 (6th Cir. 2012). When Plaintiff requested an entry of default, the Clerk’s Office denied that request;1 thus, Plaintiff’s motions for default judgment are procedurally improper.

1 As Plaintiff is in incarcerated prisoner, he “is not entitled to default judgment against defendants that have been served but have chosen not to file an answer or otherwise reply to the complaint.” See Wilson v. Stewart, Case No. 1:25-cv-10483, 2025 WL 2858910, at *1 (E.D. Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 52) and Motion for Default Judgment under Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 55 (ECF No. 54) be DENIED. The parties here may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation, but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service,

as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and 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 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Hum. Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991). Filing objections that 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 and Hum. Servs., 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Tchrs

Loc. 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(d)(2), any objections must be served on this Magistrate Judge. Any objections must be labeled as “Objection No. 1,” “Objection No. 2,” etc. Any objection must recite precisely the provision of this Report and

Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than 14 days after service of an objection, the opposing party may file a concise response proportionate to the

Mich. Sept. 15, 2025) (referring to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)), report and recommendation adopted, 2025 WL 2857995 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 8, 2025). And in any event, Defendant filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint with affirmative defenses on May 20, 2024. (ECF No. 22). objections in length and complexity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), Local Rule 72.1(d). The response must specifically address each issue raised in the objections, in the

same order, and labeled as “Response to Objection No. 1,” “Response to Objection No. 2,” etc. If the Court determines that any objections lack merit, it may rule without awaiting the response.

Date: January 5, 2026. s/Curtis Ivy, Jr. Curtis Ivy, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on the January 5, 2026, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.

s/Sara Krause Case Manager (810) 341-7850