white v. deml

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that merely submitting a brief stating that a plaintiff suffered from \extreme mental anguish\ and medical issues without supporting documentation was insufficient to prove damages
• noting that the district court granted the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, entered default judgment against the defendants, and referred the matter to a magistrate judge for a determination of damages
• determining pro se plaintiff’s submitted documentation did not provide support for the claim of damages
• affirming denial of a Rule 60(b)(1) motion arguing that due to petitioner’s “medical condition” (paranoid schizophrenia
• upholding district court’s denial of default damages where plaintiff “claimed an enormous figure unsupported by the documentation he provided[.]”
• finding district court provided leniency to pro se plaintiff’s claim on damages

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).