defendant is technically in default.” The problem with plaintiffs request for default judgment is that the defendant’s answer was timely. Rule 55, Fed.R.Civ.P., governs plaintiffs motion requesting entry of a default judgment against the defendant herein. Plaintiff filed his motion for default judgment on June 25, 1997, six days after defendant filed her timely original answer. Nothing in Rule 55 authorizes a court to strike a defendant’s answer and render a default judgment simply because the plaintiff is dissatisfied with the amount of detail contained in the defendant’s answer. Thus, entry of a default judgment based upon the defendant’s failure to timely file an answer which satisfied the personal whims and caprice of the plaintiff was not authorized in this cause. Plaintiff 94), (<HOLDING>); Murray v. Mississippi Department of
holding that a states failure to follow its own procedural regulations does not constitute a violation of due process if constitutional minima are met holding that an employers mere failure to follow its own rules and regulations does not give rise to a protected property interest holding that va must follow its own regulations holding that a prison officials failure to follow the prisons own policies procedures and regulations does not constitute a violation of due process if constitutional minima are nevertheless met holding that a state agencys violations of its own internal regulations did not establish a due process violation or otherwise give rise to a constitutional claim