Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.56.200.152

Filing 28

ORDER that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Hegarty ECF No. 27 is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Defendants Affirmative Defenses ECF No. 25 is GRANTED. Defendants first, third, fifth, sixth and eighth affirmative defenses are STRICKEN, by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 5/16/2014.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02787-WYD-MEH
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAN KENNEDY,
Defendant.

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s
Affirmative Defenses (ECF No. 25). In his Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Hegarty
recommends that the pending motion be granted. (Recommendation at 1, 4). 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 first, third, fifth, sixth and eighth
affirmative defenses 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. 27) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Affirmative
Defenses (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED. Defendant’s first, third, fifth, sixth and eighth
affirmative defenses are STRICKEN.
Dated: May 16, 2014
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-