Coleman v. State of New Hampshire

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Richard Coleman
v. Civil No. 16-cv-498-LM
State of New Hampshire, et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se plaintiff Richard Coleman has pending claims against
Natasha Cormier and FNU Dronsfield alleging malicious
prosecution. Cormier was defaulted by the Clerk of Court for
failure to appear. Doc. no. 34. Dronsfield has appeared and is
defending the claims against him through counsel.
Coleman moves for an entry of default judgment against
Cormier. Doc. no. 47. Dronsfield moves to stay the
adjudication of that motion, arguing that the court should not
enter judgment against Cormier until the claims against
Dronsfield have been resolved. Doc. no. 51. Coleman has not
objected to Dronsfield’s motion to stay. Both motions have been
referred to the undersigned.
Though persuaded by Dronsfield’s substantive arguments, the
court concludes that it would be more appropriate to deny the
motion for default judgment without prejudice rather than stay
the adjudication of that motion. This case is still in its
Case 1:16-cv-00498-LM Document 54 Filed 12/15/17 Page 1 of 3

2
early stages, with trial recently scheduled for the two-week
period beginning November 14, 2018. See Nov. 21, 2017
Scheduling Order (doc. no. 53). Thus, even assuming no
continuances, a stay could result in the motion for default
pending for a year or more before it is resolved. Additionally,
given the dispositive nature of the motion for default judgment,
the court must issue a Report and Recommendation, which will
allow Coleman a final opportunity to raise any arguments in
favor of resolving the motion for default judgment now with the
district judge via a timely objection. These considerations
militate in favor of recommending that the motion for default
judgment be denied without prejudice to Coleman refiling it once
his claims against Dronsfield have been fully adjudicated.
The court accordingly recommends that Coleman’s motion for
default judgment (doc. no. 47) be denied without prejudice to
refiling.1 Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must
be filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen-day period may be
extended upon motion. Failure to file specific written
objections to the Report and Recommendation within the specified
1 In light of this recommendation, the court denies
Dronsfield’s motion to stay (doc. no. 51) in a separate endorsed
order.
Case 1:16-cv-00498-LM Document 54 Filed 12/15/17 Page 2 of 3

3
time waives the right to appeal the district court’s order. See
Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir.
2016); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
December 15, 2017
cc: Richard Coleman, pro se
Matthew Vernon Burrows, Esq.
R. Matthew Cairns, Esq.
Case 1:16-cv-00498-LM Document 54 Filed 12/15/17 Page 3 of 3