Case Information
*1 Case: 2:05-cv-00137-JLG-NMK Doc #: 17 Filed: 10/04/05 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 492
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
TODD A. JONES ,
Plaintiff, vs. Civil Action 2:05-CV-137
Judge Graham Magistrate Judge King OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, et al. ,
Defendants.
ORDER
This action was instituted upon the grant of plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis . Doc. No. 3. On May 9, 2005, this Court directed the United States Marshal Service to effect process on each defendant and expressly granted each defendant forty-five (45) days after such service to respond to the complaint. Doc. No. 5. The record reflects that the service of process was effected on the defendants on June 2 and 3, 2005. Doc. Nos. 8,9. Defendants filed a motion for more definite statement on July 18, 2005, Doc. No. 11. This matter is now before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, Doc. No. 12.
The defendants’ motion for more definite statement was timely filed [1] and is a sufficient response to the complaint. See F.R. Civ. P. 12(b).
Case: 2:05-cv-00137-JLG-NMK Doc #: 17 Filed: 10/04/05 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 493
Because defendants are not in default, plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment, Doc. No. 12, is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
s/James L. Graham JAMES L. GRAHAM United States District Judge DATE: October 3, 2005
2
[1] For those defendants served on June 2, 2005, the 45-day time period for responding to the complaint fell on Sunday July 17, 2005. The date their response to the amended complaint was therefore due July 18, 2005, the date that their response was actually filed. See F.R. Civ. P. 6(a).