Larry O. White Jr. v. ODRC Director, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
• Decided: December 18, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00270
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI

LARRY O. WHITE JR., : Case No. 1:24-cv-270 : Plaintiff, : : Judge Matthew W. McFarland vs. : Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr. : ODRC DIRECTOR, et al., : : Defendants. : :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1

This case is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. #26), Defendants’ Response (Doc. #28), and Plaintiff’s Reply2 (Doc. #29). Plaintiff requests default judgment against Defendant Institutional Inspector Tad Palmer for his alleged failure to timely file an answer. (Doc. #26). Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplates a two-step process in obtaining a default judgment against a defendant who has failed to plead or otherwise defend. First, a plaintiff must request from the Clerk of Court an entry of default, describing the particulars of the defendant’s failure to plead or otherwise defend. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). If default is entered by the Clerk, the plaintiff must then move the court for entry of default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b).

1 Attached is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to the Report and Recommendation.

2 Although he labels his filing as “Plaintiff’s Objection to Defendants[’] Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment,” the undersigned understands this document to be Plaintiff’s Reply. Here, Plaintiff failed to request entry of default from the Clerk of Court prior to filing his Motion for Default Judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. #26) should be DENIED. Furthermore, a review of the record shows that Defendant Tad Palmer, after obtaining leave of Court to file his Answer instanter, filed his Answer on December 5, 2024. See Doc. #s 14, 15,

16. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff seeks entry of default from the Clerk of Court, his request should be DENIED. IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. #26) be DENIED.

December 18, 2025 s/Peter B. Silvain, Jr. Peter B. Silvain, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN days after being served with this Report and Recommendation. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections within FOURTEEN days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).