Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-22

Filing 191

ORDER Affirming and Adopting Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Hegarty (ECF No. 168) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. ORDERED that Doe #21s Motion to Sever and Dismiss (ECF No. 111) is DENIED by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 04/25/13.(jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02598-WYD-MEH
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOES 5-8, 10-14, 16, and 18-21,
Defendants.

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 Aunder 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 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.
Dated: April 25, 2013
BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
Wiley Y. Daniel
United States Senior 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-