Purzel Video GmbH v. Does 64, 69, 74, 76, 77, 79, 81, 85, 87, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 112, 113 and 114

Filing 56

ORDER Affirming and Adopting Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Hegarty 54 is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Defendant Inge's Counterclaims and to Strike Defendant Inges Affirmative Defenses 40 is GRANTED. Defendant's affirmative defenses at 19, 20, 22, 23, 21(2nd), 22(2nd), and 26 are STRICKEN by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 12/19/13.(jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 13-cv-001167-WYD-MEH
PURZEL VIDEO GmbH,
Plaintiff,
v.
REGINALD KEY,
BENITO SMOAK,
GEOFF INGE, and
DON TYSLAN,
Defendants.

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant
Inge’s Counterclaims and to Strike Defendant Inge’s Affirmative Defenses (ECF No. 40).
In his Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Hegarty recommends that the pending motion
be granted. (Recommendation at 1). 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 granted and that Defendant’s affirmative defenses at ¶¶ 19, 20,
22, 23, 21(2nd), 22(2nd), and 26 should be stricken 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. 54) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant Inge’s
Counterclaims and to Strike Defendant Inge’s Affirmative Defenses (ECF No. 40) is
GRANTED. Defendant’s affirmative defenses at ¶¶ 19, 20, 22, 23, 21(2nd), 22(2nd),
and 26 are STRICKEN.

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).

Dated: December 19, 2013
BY THE COURT:

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