Scott v. Occuguides USA, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-CV-00023-KDB-DCK KEON SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. ORDER OCCUGUIDES USA, LLC, Defendant. THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s pro se Motion for Default Judgment. (Doc. No. 31). For the reasons briefly discussed below, the Court will deny the Motion. A motion for default judgment is governed by Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed R. Civ. P. 55. Rule 55(b) "authorizes the entry of a default judgment when a Defendant fails 'to plead or otherwise defend' in accordance with the Rules." United States v. Moradi, 673 F.2d 725, 727 (4th Cir.1982). Here, the Plaintiff is mistaken as to the applicability of Rule 55. Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to an entry of a default judgment because of the Defendant’s failure to respond to “Plaintiff’s reply to the Defendant’s Motion to Compel and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Motion to Compel.” See Doc. No. 31. However, this Court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, and the Defendant was not required, nor permitted, to file a surreply to Plaintiff’s reply to the Defendant’s Motion to Compel. See Doc. No. 28; Local Rule 7.1(e). Accordingly, there is no basis for an entry of a default judgment and the Court will deny the Motion.! NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's pro se Motion for Default Judgment, (Doc. No. 31), is DENIED. SO ORDERED. Signed: February 3, 2023, | Ae) [ie Ka 7 LD. a Kenneth D. Bell Vy, United States District Judge i f ' The Plaintiff is reminded that despite appearing pro se he will be held to the same standards as defense counsel. If the Plaintiff files a frivolous or vexatious motion the Court may impose a prefiling review system and/or sanctions. See Vestal v. Clinton, 106 F.3d 553 (4th Cir. 1997); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.