George

MEMORANDUM **

Richard E. George appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action challenging collection of his 1997-1999 income taxes. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Trantina v. United States, 512 F.3d 567 , 570 n. 2 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

*311 The district court properly denied George’s request for entry of default judgment against the federal defendants because the mere failure to answer a complaint within the statutory deadline is not a sufficient ground for entry of default judgment against the government. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 55(d) (explaining that default judgment against the government and its officers is proper “only if the claimant establishes a claim or right to relief by evidence that satisfies the court”); Moore v. United Kingdom, 384 F.3d 1079 , 1090 n. 16 (9th Cir.2004) (noting that Rule 55(d) requires “district courts to reach the merits of a plaintiffs claim before entering a default judgment against the government”).

The district court properly granted summary judgment to federal defendants. Contrary to George’s contention, the entry of summary judgment did not violate his right to a jury trial. See…