govinfo:USCOURTS-tnwd-2_25-cv-02219-0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 
WESTERN DIVISION 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
MARCUS MALONE, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v.       Case No. 2:25-cv-02219-MSN-tmp  
        
STEPHANIE MILLS, 
  
Defendant. 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
The proceedings in this case are confusing.  P resently before the Court is a filing entered 
on the docket as  Plaintiff’s “First Motion to Set Aside Default Default Judgment ” (ECF No. 22, 
“Motion”), filed March 27, 2026.  Internally, however, that Motion is titled “Motion to Set Aside 
Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment.”  (Id.)  Substantively, Plaintiff asks that this Court 
either (1) set aside an entry of default, or (2) set aside a final default judgment.  (Id. at PageID 87.)  
For the sake of clarity, no motion for summary judgment has been filed in this case.  Nor has any 
default or default judgment been entered.   
From what the Court can discern, the Motion actually relates to P laintiff’s unsuccessful 
attempts to obtain a default judgment.  Initially, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Declaratory Judgment 
(ECF No. 15) on February 11, 2026, in which the actual relief requested was a default judgment.  
The Clerk of Court issued an appropriate  deficiency notice indicating that the wrong CM/ECF 
event was used.  (ECF No. 17.)  A day later, on February 12, 2026, Plaintiff filed a correctly titled 
Motion for Default Judgment .  (ECF No. 19.)   But as  close readers of Rule 55  will be aware, in 
order to obtain a default judgment, a party  must first move for entry of default.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 
Case 2:25-cv-02219-MSN-tmp     Document 23     Filed 04/30/26     Page 1 of 2      PageID
<pageID>
 2 
55(a).  And upon denying the motion for default judgment, the Clerk duly notified Plaintiff of that 
procedure twice.  (See ECF Nos. 20 & 21.) 
Because there is nothing to “to aside,” which is the relief Plaintiff seeks, the Motion (ECF 
No. 22) is DENIED.  If P laintiff still seeks a default ju dgment, he should comply with the 
procedure provided in Rule 55. 
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 30th day of April, 2026. 
 
s/ Mark S. Norris 
MARK S. NORRIS 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
Case 2:25-cv-02219-MSN-tmp     Document 23     Filed 04/30/26     Page 2 of 2      PageID
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight