Haasan Hijrahannah v. Def Jam Recording

Filing

Filed Nonprecedential Disposition PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Diane P. Wood, Chief Judge; Richard D. Cudahy, Circuit Judge and John Daniel Tinder, Circuit Judge. [6633065-1] [6633065] [14-2790]

Case: 14-2790

Document: 12
Filed: 01/08/2015
Pages: 2
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted January 6, 2015 *
Decided January 8, 2015
Before
DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge
RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge
JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge
No. 14-2790
HAASAN H. HIJRAHANNAH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.

v.
UMG RECORDINGS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14 C 0872
Amy J. St. Eve,
Judge.
ORDER

Haasan Hijrahannah sued UMG Recordings, alleging that he created sheet music
and provided it to the company, which used it for financial gain in violation of
numerous federal statutes, including the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101–1332,
and its amendment, the Visual Artists Rights Act, id. § 106A. He also invokes the
After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is
unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P.
34(a)(2).
*

Case: 14-2790
No. 14-2790

Document: 12

Filed: 01/08/2015

Pages: 2
Page 2

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and several state laws. The district court
dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim because Hijrahannah did not allege
that he owned a valid copyright or protectable work of visual art, and the Declaration
provides no private right of action. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). The court declined to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hijrahannah’s state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c)(3).
Hijrahannah generally contests the district court’s order, urging that his claims
should move forward. But Hijrahannah has failed to develop any argument that would
provide a basis to disturb the district court’s judgment. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8). For
substantially the reasons stated by the district court, we AFFIRM.