The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:18-cv-00624-RJC-DSC
DARNELL WINSTON WALKER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) ORDER
ROBERT WILKIE, Secretary of Veterans )
Affairs, )
)
Defendant. )
)
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motions for Default
Judgment, (Doc. Nos. 10, 14), Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative,
Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 15), the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum
and Recommendation (“M&R”), (Doc. No. 24), Plaintiff’s Objections, (Doc. No. 27), and
Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal and Disqualification of Magistrate Judge, (Doc. No. 30).
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed her pro se Complaint against Defendant on November 19, 2018
alleging unequal terms and conditions of employment, retaliation, and hostile work
environment based on race and gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964. (Doc. No. 1.) On March 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default
Judgment. (Doc. No. 10.) Plaintiff filed a second Motion for Default Judgment on
March 28, 2019. (Doc. No. 14.) On April 3, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss
or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 15.) In the M&R,
the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant Defendant’s motion and
dismiss this case. (Doc. No. 24, at 7.) After the Magistrate Judge issued the M&R,
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Recusal and Disqualification of Magistrate Judge. (Doc.
No. 30.)
II. DISCUSSION
A. Motions for Default Judgment
Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs Plaintiff’s Motions for
Default Judgment. “Rule 55 sets forth a two-step process for obtaining a default
judgment.” Brown v. Prime Star Grp., Inc., No. 3:12-cv-165, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
141495, at *5 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 2012). A plaintiff must first seek an entry of default
under Rule 55(a). L & M Cos. v. Biggers III Produce, Inc., No. 3:08-cv-309, 2010 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 46907, at *14 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 9, 2010). Rule 55(a) states that “[w]hen a
party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or
otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must
enter the party’s default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). “Upon the entry of default, the
defaulted party is deemed to have admitted all well-pleaded allegations of fact
contained in the complaint.” Brown, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141495, at *4.
“After the clerk has entered a default, the plaintiff may seek a default
judgment.” Silvers v. Iredell Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., No. 5:15-cv-00083, 2016 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 13865, at *9 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 3, 2016). Default judgment is proper “only
if the well-pleaded factual allegations in a complaint both establish a valid cause of
action and entitle the plaintiff to an award of damages or other relief.” i play. Inc. v.
D. Catton Enter., LLC, No. 1:12-cv-22, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29870, at *6 (W.D.N.C.
Mar. 10, 2015).
Plaintiff has not obtained an entry of default; however, entry of default is not
appropriate in this case. The Court granted Defendant an extension of time to answer
or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint, and Plaintiff filed the Motions for
Default Judgment prior to this extended deadline. On April 3, 2019, Defendant
timely responded to Plaintiff’s Complaint by filing a Motion to Dismiss or, in the
Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. As Defendant has not failed to plead or
otherwise defend, entry of default is not appropriate. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motions
for Default Judgment are denied.
B. Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment
A district court may assign dispositive pretrial matters to a magistrate judge
for “proposed findings of fact and recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The
Federal Magistrate Act provides that a district court “shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specific proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. at § 636(b)(1); Camby v. Davis, 718
F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After de novo review of the record, the M&R, and Plaintiff’s Objections thereto,
the Court concludes that the recommendation to grant Defendant’s motion is fully
consistent with and supported by current law. Therefore, the Court adopts the M&R.
C. Motion for Recusal and Disqualification of Magistrate Judge
Having concluded that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative,
Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted, the Court denies as moot
Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal and Disqualification of Magistrate Judge.
Il. CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs Motions for Default Judgment, (Doc. Nos. 10, 14), are
DENIED;
2. The Magistrate Judge’s M&R, (Doc. No. 24), is ADOPTED;
3. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for
Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 15), is GRANTED and Plaintiffs
Complaint is DISMISSED;
4. Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal and Disqualification of Magistrate Judge,
(Doc. No. 30), is DENIED as moot; and
5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
Signed: October 8, 2019
Bate Cree f
Robert J. Conrad, Jr. es
United States District Judge “ee