Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe

Full title: MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOES 5-8, 10-14, 16, and 18-21…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Apr 25, 2013

Civil Action No. 12-cv-02598-WYD-MEH (D. Colo. Apr. 25, 2013)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 12-cv-02598-WYD-MEH

04-25-2013

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOES 5-8, 10-14, 16, and 18-21, Defendants.

Wiley Y. Daniel

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Doe #21's Motion to Sever and Dismiss (ECF No. 111). In his Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Hegarty recommends that the pending motion be denied because Doe #21 has failed to show that severance pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 is proper at this stage of the litigation or that the Court should dismiss him as a party. (Recommendation at 15). The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Magistrate Judge Hegarty advised the parties that written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after service of a copy of the Recommendation. (Recommendation at 1). Despite this advisement, no objections were filed to the Recommendation. 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."¹ See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes.

1 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 find that Magistrate Judge Hegarty's Recommendation is thorough, well reasoned and sound. I agree with Magistrate Judge Hegarty that the pending motion should be denied for the reasons stated in both the Recommendation and this Order.

Based on the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Hegarty (ECF No. 168) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Doe #21's Motion to Sever and Dismiss (ECF No. 111) is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

____________________

Wiley Y. Daniel

United States Senior District Judge