White v. United States

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUITU.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APR 14, 2011
No. 10-11998 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:09-cv-60648-UU
PERRY WHITE,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellant,
EVELYN JACKSON, et al.,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
including the United States Office of
Personnel Management, et al., along
with and including
d.b.a. United States Postal Service,
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES GROUP LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
METROPOLITAN (METLIFE) LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 14, 2011)
Before WILSON, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Perry White appeals pro se the dismissal of his complaint to recover, as a
purported beneficiary, the proceeds of a life insurance policy that had been issued
to his brother. White argues that he was entitled to a default judgment against the
United States, the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Company, and
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company because they failed to respond timely to
White’s complaint or to request timely an extension of time to respond. The
district court denied White’s motion on the ground that the defendants had timely
responded to the complaint, and the district court later dismissed White’s
complaint with prejudice. We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to enter a default
judgment against Metropolitan Life. Metropolitan Life never was in default.
White served Metropolitan Life with the summons and complaint on May 26,
2009, and Metropolitan Life responded by timely filing a motion to strike on June
2
9, 2009. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). The district court later granted a stay
and, after lifting the stay on February 3, 2010, granted Metropolitan Life until
February 16, 2010, to respond to the complaint, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4). The
district court later granted a motion to extend the time to respond until February
24, 2010, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). Metropolitan Life filed an answer to
White’s complaint on February 24, 2010.
The district court also did not abuse its discretion by refusing to enter a
default judgment against the United States. White failed to “establish a claim or
right to relief” against the United States. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(d). The district court
ruled that White could not “maintain his claim against the United States under the
limited waiver of sovereign immunity found in [the] [Federal Employees’ Group
Life Insurance Act],” 5 U.S.C. §§ 8701–16, and White did not challenge that
decision. Although the district court granted White leave to file an amended
complaint, White refused to do so.
The dismissal of White’s complaint is AFFIRMED.
3