# Craver v. Brown

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · June 10, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11069042

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** June 10, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11069042

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

RICHARD C. CRAVER, :
: Case No. 2:24-cv-4070
Plaintiff, :
: Judge Algenon L. Marbley
v. : Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
:
SUSAN BROWN, :
:
Defendant. :

OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before this Court on Plaintiff Richard C. Craver’s Motion for Default
Judgment. (ECF No. 4). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
On October 16, 2024, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action alleging civil rights
violations against Defendant Franklin County Child Support Enforcement Agency Director Susan
Brown. (Doc. 1-1). Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and the
Magistrate Judge recommended this Court deny the motion. (ECF No. 2). He did not object and
subsequently paid the applicable filing fee on November 5, 2024. (ECF No. 3). On December 9,
2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 4). In his motion, he argues that
since filing the lawsuit in October of 2024, Defendant failed to respond. He states that Defendant
failed to respond to communications sent to her, as well as this legal action, and the deadline to
respond to his complaint had passed. (Id.).
While Plaintiff initiated this cause of action in October 2024, the prerequisite filing fee was
paid in November 2024. (ECF Nos. 1; 3; 5). Defendant, however, was not served until March 13,
2025. (ECF No. 11). On March 26, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 10).
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
As a threshold matter, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 governs defaults and default
judgments and provides a two-step procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. A plaintiff must first apply
for and receive an entry of default from the Clerk of Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). After the Clerk

enters a party’s default, then a plaintiff may apply to the court for a default judgment. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 55(b)(2). Here, Plaintiff moved for default judgment but had not yet obtained an entry of default
from the Clerk of Court. Because he has not followed the proper procedures for default judgment,
his motion is denied.
Even if Plaintiff properly followed the two-step process, he failed to serve Defendant
before filing for default judgment. “Due process requires proper service of process for a court to
have jurisdiction to adjudicate the rights of the parties.” O.J. Distrib., Inc. v. Hornell Brewing Co.,
340 F.3d 345, 353 (6th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, an entry of default must be set aside if service of
process was not proper. See id.; Simmons v. Ohio Civil Serv. Emp. Assoc., 259 F.Supp.2d 677, 685–
86 (6th Cir.2003) (setting aside an entry of default where defendant was not properly served with

pleadings); see also Omni Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., 484 U.S. 97, 104, 108
S.Ct. 404, 98 L.Ed.2d 415 (1987) (“Before a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over
a defendant, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be satisfied.”). As such, an
“[e]ntry of default judgment is only appropriate where a defendant has failed ‘to plead or otherwise
defend’ against a properly served lawsuit.” Washington v. McCoy, No. 1:12–cv–628, 2013 WL
1641369, at *1 (S.D.Ohio April 16, 2013) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 55); see also Lyles v. Cap.--EMI
Music Inc., No. 2:12-CV-00751, 2014 WL 4181698, at *2 n.2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 21, 2014); Bowden
v. Brinly-Hardy Co., Inc., No. 3:20-CV-0438-CHB, 2020 WL 9607026, at *4 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 26,
2020). Here, Plaintiff served Defendant on March 13, 2025. (ECF No. 11). Defendant was thus
required to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint by April 3, 2025. /d.). On March 26,
2025, Defendant filed timely a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff’s request for entry of
default judgment, thus, must be denied.
I. CONCLUSION
Given Plaintiff’s failure to obtain an entry of default and properly serve Defendant before
filing a Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 4), the motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: June 10, 2025

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11069042. Public record. Not legal advice.