Opinion
Civil Action 1:22-cv-03299-CNS-MEH
05-19-2023
PREPARED FOOD PHOTOS, INC. f/k/a Adlife Marketing & Communications Co., Inc., Plaintiff, v. CHICAGO-MARKET-DISTRIBUTORS, INC. d/b/a Chicago Market, Defendant.
ORDER
Charlotte N. Sweeney, Judge
Before the Court is the Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty issued on April 18, 2023 (ECF No. 30). For the following reasons, the Court affirms and ADOPTS the Recommendation.
The parties were advised that they had fourteen days, after being served with a copy of the Recommendation, to file written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge assigned to the case. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Neither party has filed an objection to Magistrate Judge Hegarty's Recommendation.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), this Court may designate a Magistrate Judge to consider dispositive motions and submit recommendations to the Court. When a Magistrate Judge submits a Recommendation, the Court must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's [recommended] disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). A party's failure to file such written objections may bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Judge of the proposed findings and recommendations. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). When this occurs, the Court is “accorded considerable discretion” and “may review a [Magistrate Judge]'s report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150).
After reviewing all the relevant pleadings, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Hegarty's analysis was thorough and comprehensive, the Recommendation is well-reasoned, and the Court finds no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Hegarty's Recommendation (ECF No. 30) as an Order of this Court. As such:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED (ECF No. 12);
2. The Clerk of Court shall enter an award of $35,964.00 for Defendant's infringement of Plaintiff's copyrighted work, plus prejudgment interest;
3. Defendant, its employees, agents, officers, directors, attorneys, successors, affiliates, subsidiaries, vendors and assigns, and all those in active concert and participation with Defendant, are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from (a) directly or indirectly infringing Plaintiff's copyrights or continuing to market, offer, sell, dispose of, license, lease, transfer, publicly display, advertise, reproduce, develop, or manufacture any works derived or copied from Plaintiff's copyrighted photograph or to participate or assist in any such activity; and (b) directly or indirectly reproducing, displaying, distributing, otherwise using, or retaining any copy, whether in physical or electronic form, of any copyrighted photograph owned by Plaintiff.