IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

FRANK D. MONSEGUE, SR..

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:22-cv-81

v.

TRICIA GRIFFITH, et al.,

Defendants.

O RDE R After a careful de novo review of the entire record, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, (doc. 23), to which plaintiff has filed an objection, (doc. 24). The Magistrate Judge recommended that Monsegue’s Motion for Default Judgment, (doc. 13), be denied because “there is no indication that any of the defendants who have not responded [to his Complaint] have been served or waived service.” (Doc. 23, p. 3.) Monsegue’s Objection states the allegedly defaulted defendants, Greg A. Cohen, Jovel Yanalta, and Alexis DeNuccio, “had knowledge of this Civil Action claim thru: (1) [t]he summons issued by the clerk of court, (2) [t]he [c]ourt [w]ebsite[,] (3) Plaintiff [e]-mails[,] (4) Plaintiff USPS mail (Letter to a Cease and Desist)[,] (5) Defendant Tricia Griffith[,] (6) Certitifcate of Service filed by [Defendant Griffith’s counsel] Attorney Ryan E. Harbin . . . .” (Doc. 24 at 1.) None of those methods of “notice” is sufficient to effect service, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). Accordingly, Defendant’s Objection is OVERRULED, (doc. 24), the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED, (doc. 23), and Monsegue’s Motion for Default Judgment is DENIED, (doc. 13). The Magistrate Judge also stayed all deadlines in this case, sua sponte, pending resolution of the questions concerning service upon several defendants. (Doc. 23, pp. 6-7.) Monsegue objects to the Magistrate Judge’s acknowledgement that he did not file a formal opposition to defendant Griffith’s Motion to Stay, asserting that he stated his opposition in the Rule 26(f) Report. (See doc. 24, p. 1.) However, the Magistrate Judge expressly noted Monsegue’s opposition in the parties’ Rule 26(f) report. (Doc. 23, p. 5 (explaining that stating opposition in the report “does not excuse [Monsegue’s] obligation to respond to the motion and [his opposition] does not assert any valid grounds to oppose the stay.”) Because the stay is non-dispositive, the Court reviews the ruling to determine whether it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See

(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also Jackson v. Deen,

, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 2, 2013). Because the Magistrate Judge’s stay, pending determination of whether any defendant other than Griffith has been served, was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, Monsegue’s Objection is OVERRULED. (Doc. 24.) All deadlines in this case remain STAYED pending further Order from the Court. SO ORDERED, this 17th day of November, 2022. f S ee Lye R.STANBAKER ss—‘i—sSCS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA