Wright v. MacConnell, No. 3:2015cv00211 - Document 41 (S.D. Ohio 2016)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULTJUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE; UPDATE ON STATUS - Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment in the amount of $100,000 (ECF No. 34) is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal with proof of the damages suffered.The Court has received no further reports on the status of the bankruptcy case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 8/20/2016. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF
Wright v. MacConnell Doc. 41 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON DWAINE WRIGHT, Plaintiff, - vs : Case No. 3:15-cv-211 District Judge Thomas M. Rose Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz - RION MacCONNELL, Defendant. : DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE; UPDATE ON STATUS This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment in the amount of $100,000 (ECF No. 34). Plaintiff correctly points out that Defendant is in default and the Clerk has entered that default of record. However, the Motion is not supported by any proof of damages, but merely makes a conclusory claim for $100,000. Because the Motion makes no proof of the damages suffered by Plaintiff, it is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal with proof of the damages suffered. The case is also before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Update Status (ECF No. 40). Attached is a copy of this Court’s Bankruptcy Stay Order (ECF No. 37) and of a Motion to 1 Dockets.Justia.com Dismiss filed in the relevant bankruptcy case, No. 16-31707, which Plaintiff presumably received from the United States Trustee. The Court has received no further reports on the status of the bankruptcy case. August 20, 2016. s/ Michael R. Merz United States Magistrate Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.