Dale E. Holloway, Jr. v. N.H. State Prison Warden Michelle Edmark

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: October 17, 2025
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00009
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Dale E. Holloway, Jr.

v. Civil No. 22-cv-009-SE-AJ

N.H. State Prison Warden Michelle Edmark

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In this § 2254 petition, Dale E. Holloway is challenging his conviction and sentence in State v. Holloway, No. 216-2019- cr-1856 (N.H. Super. Ct., Hillsborough Cty.-N.D.). Before the court are Holloway’s motions seeking entry of default and a default judgment (Doc. Nos. 51, 57).

Discussion The clerk’s entry of default and a default judgment “can come into play . . . ‘[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend’ in the action. Universitas Educ., LLC v. Granderson, 98 F.4th 357, 363 n.2 (1st Cir. 2024) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a)). Respondent filed a motion to dismiss this petition, see Doc. No. 48, interposing Holloway’s failure to exhaust as a potentially dispositive defense. That motion makes a default judgment improper here, even though respondent filed that potentially dispositive motion several weeks after the court’s deadline for filing a response. See Jenkins v. Hazlewood, No.

20-cv-803-PB, 2021 DNH 154, 2021 WL 4462192, at *8, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186631, at *20-21 (D.N.H. Sept. 29, 2021); see also Quinones-Torres v. United States, 240 F. App’x 876, 878 (1st Cir. 2007) (prisoner was not entitled to default judgment “simply because the government did not file an opposition to his habeas petition”). Accordingly, the district judge should deny petitioner’s motions (Doc. Nos. 51, 57).

Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should deny Holloway’s two motions (Doc. Nos. 51, 57) seeking entry of default and a default judgment. Any objections to this Report

and Recommendation (“R&R”) must be filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen-day period may be extended upon motion. Only those issues raised in the objections to this R&R are subject to review in the district court. See Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Nat’l Ins. Co., 617 F.3d 554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010). Any issues not preserved by such objections are precluded on appeal. See id. Failure to file any objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the district court’s Order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016). Andrea K. Johnstone United States Magistrate Judge October 17, 2025 ec: Dale □□□ Holloway, Jr., pro se Elizabeth C. Woodcock, Esq. John Drennan, Esq.