ROBERT CONRAD JR., District Judge
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default. (Doc. No. 20). On September 2, 2010, Plaintiff, Randolph Watterson, filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the Defendants violated his constitutional rights by opening his legal mail outside of his presence, censoring his outgoing mail, and disciplining him based on the contents of his mail. (Doc. No. 1). Defendants Terrell, Faircloth, Copening, and Brookshire were served on September 13, 2010. (Doc. Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13). After Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Entry of Default, Defendants Terrell, Faircloth, Copening, and Brookshire filed a Motion for an Extension to Time to file an Answer together with an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. (Doc. Nos. 22 and 23). The Court granted Defendants' motion, finding that good cause had been established, and allowed these four Defendants to file an Answer on November 29, 2010, which they have done. (Text-Only Order, November 30, 2010). Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default is denied as moot.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default (Doc. No. 20) is denied as moot.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: December 1, 2010