Bryant Moore v. Lightstorm Entertainment, Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for stay pending appeal [999692842-2] Originating case number: 8:11-cv-03644-RWT Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999773498]. Mailed to: Moore. [15-2159]

Appeal: 15-2159

Doc: 27

Filed: 03/14/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2159

BRYANT MOORE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LIGHTSTORM
ENTERTAINMENT,
INC.,
(“Lightstorm”);
CAMERON,
(“Cameron”);
TWENTIETH
CENTURY
FOX
CORPORATION, (“Fox”),

JAMES
FILM

Defendants – Appellees,
And
20TH CENTURY FOX FILM, INC.; JAMES CAMERON, III,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:11-cv-03644-RWT)

Submitted:

February 25, 2016

Before KING and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

March 14, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bryant Moore, Appellant Pro Se.
Robert H. Rotstein, MITCHELL
SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP, Los Angeles, California; J. Matthew
Williams, MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP, Washington, D.C., for

Appeal: 15-2159

Doc: 27

Filed: 03/14/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-2159

Doc: 27

Filed: 03/14/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Bryant Moore appeals the district court’s order granting
the Appellees’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs under 17
U.S.C. § 505 (2012), and denying Moore’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)
motion

to

judgment

vacate
in

the

favor

infringement claims.

of

court’s
the

prior

order

Appellees

on

granting
Moore’s

summary

copyright

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and

conclude that the district court did not err.

Accordingly, we

affirm the district court’s order and deny Moore’s motion to
stay proceedings related to the fee award pending appeal.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3