Richard Dell Abbott v. USA

W.D. Louisiana

Richard Dell Abbott v. USA

DecidedDecember 5, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-00096

StatusUnknown

This text of Richard Dell Abbott v. USA (Richard Dell Abbott v. USA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richard Dell Abbott v. USA, (W.D. La. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

RICHARD DELL ABBOTT #17000- CIVIL DOCKET NO. 1:25-CV-00096 089, SEC P Plaintiff

VERSUS JUDGE EDWARDS

USA, MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES Defendant

MEMORANDUM ORDER Before the Court is a second Motion for Entry of Default (ECF No. 28) filed by pro se Plaintiff Richard Dell Abbott (“Abbott”) with respect to a Complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1346, . Abbott seeks an entry of default because the United States has not responded to the lawsuit. . The United States Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana was served by certified mail on March 31, 2025. ECF No. 13. Online tracking information indicates that a copy of same was delivered to the Attorney General in Washington, D.C., on May 9, 2025.1 However, no corresponding return receipt was filed in the record. Because “[s]ervice by ‘registered or certified mail’ generally requires not only that service be sent via certified mail, but that the recipient sign the certified-mail

1https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction?qtc_tLabels1=70202450000170577331 return receipt,” see Cassidy As Next Friend Cassidy v. United States, 22-CV-00652- XR, 2023 WL 4054630, at *3 (W.D. Tex. June 15, 2023) (citing Fuqua v. Turner, 996 F.3d 1140, 1155 (11th Cir. 2021) (affirming invalidity of service upon Attorney General when return receipt was not signed)); Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1202- 03 (10th Cir. 2003) (plaintiff failed to produce signed return receipts), and to ensure that the Attorney General was properly served, the Clerk of Court was directed to reissue service documents. But because the Government had notice of the lawsuit since service on the United States Attorney in March 2025, and courtesy copies of the Court’s Orders were provided to the Government, an expedited Answer was required. ECF No. 19. The Attorney General was again served on October 3, 2025, and acknowledgement of service was filed into the record. ECF No. 26. The Government was ordered to respond to the lawsuit by November 3, 2025. Id. To date, no response has been filed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Abbott’s Motion for Entry of Default (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED to the extent that the Clerk of Court is instructed to issue a Notice of Entry of Default. SIGNED on Thursday, December 4, 2025. xf” JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

RICHARD DELL ABBOTT #17000- CIVIL DOCKET NO. 1:25-CV-00096 089, SEC P Plaintiff

VERSUS JUDGE EDWARDS

USA, MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES Defendant

MEMORANDUM ORDER Before the Court is a second Motion for Entry of Default (ECF No. 28) filed by pro se Plaintiff Richard Dell Abbott (“Abbott”) with respect to a Complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1346, . Abbott seeks an entry of default because the United States has not responded to the lawsuit. . The United States Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana was served by certified mail on March 31, 2025. ECF No. 13. Online tracking information indicates that a copy of same was delivered to the Attorney General in Washington, D.C., on May 9, 2025.1 However, no corresponding return receipt was filed in the record. Because “[s]ervice by ‘registered or certified mail’ generally requires not only that service be sent via certified mail, but that the recipient sign the certified-mail

1https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction?qtc_tLabels1=70202450000170577331 return receipt,” see Cassidy As Next Friend Cassidy v. United States, 22-CV-00652- XR, 2023 WL 4054630, at *3 (W.D. Tex. June 15, 2023) (citing Fuqua v. Turner, 996 F.3d 1140, 1155 (11th Cir. 2021) (affirming invalidity of service upon Attorney General when return receipt was not signed)); Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1202- 03 (10th Cir. 2003) (plaintiff failed to produce signed return receipts), and to ensure that the Attorney General was properly served, the Clerk of Court was directed to reissue service documents. But because the Government had notice of the lawsuit since service on the United States Attorney in March 2025, and courtesy copies of the Court’s Orders were provided to the Government, an expedited Answer was required. ECF No. 19. The Attorney General was again served on October 3, 2025, and acknowledgement of service was filed into the record. ECF No. 26. The Government was ordered to respond to the lawsuit by November 3, 2025. Id. To date, no response has been filed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Abbott’s Motion for Entry of Default (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED to the extent that the Clerk of Court is instructed to issue a Notice of Entry of Default. SIGNED on Thursday, December 4, 2025. xf” JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Richard Dell Abbott v. USA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-dell-abbott-v-usa-lawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack