# Magee

> District Court, E.D. Louisiana · May 18, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11346915

## Case

- **Full name:** Erice O. Magee v. Amazon Corporation, LLC, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** May 18, 2026
- **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/11346915

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ERICE O. MAGEE * CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS * NO. 25-1241

AMAZON CORPORATION, LLC, * SECTION “L” (2)
ET AL.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before me is Plaintiff Erice O. Magee’s Motion for Default Judgment. ECF No.
31. This matter is automatically referred to the undersigned magistrate judge. E.D. La. L.R.
73.2(C); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
Considering the record, the submission, and applicable law, and for the following reasons,
the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the motion be DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Erice O. Magee filed this employment case against Defendant Amazon on June
17, 2025. ECF No. 1. After numerous service issues, a summons was issued on April 3, 2026.
ECF No. 25. The Summons notified Defendant to serve an answer within 21 days of service. Id.
Plaintiff filed a return of service reflecting service on Amazon’s registered agent on April 23, 2026.
ECF No. 26 at 2. Amazon filed an Answer on May 14, 2026. ECF No. 27. That same day,
Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of default, which the Clerk of Court denied. ECF Nos. 30, 33.
On May 15, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment, asserting that, on April 3,
2026, this Court ordered Amazon to file an answer within 21 days after April 3, 2026. ECF No.
31 ¶ 2. Plaintiff seeks entry of default because Amazon failed to file an Answer by April 24, 2026.
However, Plaintiff’s factual assertion underlying the request for default is incorrect. There is no
Court order dated April 3, 2026. Rather, on that date, the Clerk of Court issued a Summons which
expressly notes that an answer is due within 21 days of service, not issuance, of the summons.
Were the time to run from issuance rather than service, Amazon’s answer would have been due
one day after service. See ECF Nos. 25, 26. Rule 12(a)(1)(A), however, expressly states that a
defendant must file an answer within 21 days of service.
II. APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS

A default judgment may not be entered against a defendant absent proper service of process
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 Rule 55(a) provides that a default may be entered
against a party when it “has failed to plead or otherwise defend itself.”2 Rule 55(b) governs entry
of default judgment by a court. Only after the Clerk’s entry of a default under Rule 55(a) may a
plaintiff “apply for a judgment based on such default.”3 Thus, a court will determine whether entry
of a default judgment is proper only after the procedural prerequisites for entering a default
judgment are met, including entry of default by the Clerk of Court.4
To summarize, a plaintiff must satisfy three steps to obtain a default judgment: (1) default
by the defendant; (2) entry of default by the court clerk; and (3) a default judgment granted by the
court.5 In this case, procedural and substantive issues require denial of Plaintiff’s motion. First,

the Clerk of Court denied Plaintiff’s request for entry of default. ECF No. 33. Second, Defendant
filed an Answer within 21 days of service of the summons (i.e., on May 14, 2026, which is 21 days
after service on April 23, 2026). As such, Plaintiff is not entitled to seek a default judgment and
entry of same would be entirely improper in light of the timely-filed answer.

1 Fagan v. Lawrence Nathan Assocs., Inc., 957 F. Supp. 2d 784, 794 (E.D. La. 2013) (Brown, J.) (citing Rogers v.
Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 167 F.3d 933, 941–42 (5th Cir. 1999)).
2 Sun Bank of Ocala v. Pelican Homestead & Sav. Ass'n, 874 F.2d 274, 276 (5th Cir. 1989).
3 N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 84 F.3d 137, 141 (5th Cir. 1996); 10A WRIGHT &, MILLER’S FEDERAL PRACTICE &
PROCEDURE § 2682 (4th ed. 2023) (“Prior to obtaining a default judgment under either Rule 55(b)(1) or Rule 55(b)(2),
there must be an entry of default as provided by Rule 55(a).”)
4 Fagan, 957 F. Supp. 2d at 796.
5 See Brown, 84 F.3d at 141 (“After defendant's default has been entered, plaintiff may apply for a judgment based on
such default. This is a default judgment.” (emphasis omitted)).
Il. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Clerk of Court denied entry of default, and Defendant timely filed an Answer.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff Erice O. Magee’s Motion for Default Judgment
(ECF No. 31) be DENIED.
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within fourteen (14) days
after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from
attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by
the district court, provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences will
result from a failure to object.®
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 18th day of May, 2026.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6 Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).
Douglass referred to the previously applicable ten-day period for filing of objections, which was extended to fourteen
days by amendment effective December 1, 2009, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11346915. Public record. Not legal advice.