Malibu Media v. John Does 1-42

Filing 163

ORDER Affirming and Adopting Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge dated June 25, 2013, 161 is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. ORDERED that Defendant John Doe # 22's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Lack of Standing 107 is DENIED by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 07/15/13.(jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01953-WYD-MEH
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOES 7, 9-11, 15-31, 33-36, and 39,
Defendants.

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."1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes.
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.
Dated: July 15, 2013
BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
Wiley Y. Daniel
Senior United States District Judge

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).

-2-