Summary
finding that Malibu Media owned copyrights for the works, was properly assigned exclusive rights to the works, and had the right to sue for past infringement
Summary of this case from Malibu Media, LLC v. TsankoOpinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01953-WYD-MEH
07-15-2013
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOES 7, 9-11, 15-31, 33-36, and 39, Defendants.
Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS MATTER is before the Court in connection with Defendant John Doe # 22's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Lack of Standing filed on February 11, 2013. This motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Hegarty for a recommendation. A Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge was issued on June 25, 2013, and is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Magistrate Judge Hegarty recommends therein that the motion be denied. He also advised the parties that written objections to the Recommendation were due within fourteen (14) days after service. (Recommendation at 1 n. 1.) No objections were filed.
No objections having been filed, I am vested with discretion to review the Recommendation "under any standard [I] deem[] appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that "[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings"). Nonetheless, though not required to do so, I review the Recommendation to "satisfy [my]self that there is no clear error on the face of the record." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes.
Note, this standard of review is something less than a "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Having reviewed the Recommendation, I am satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. I agree with Magistrate Judge Hegarty that Doe #22's challenge to standing is without merit, and that the motion to dismiss for lack of standing should be denied. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge dated June 25, 2013, (ECF No. 161) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is
ORDERED that Defendant John Doe # 22's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Lack of Standing (ECF No. 107) is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
______________
Wiley Y. Daniel
Senior United States District Judge