Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.71.86.68

Filing 36

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING 35 RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Plaintiff's 33 Motion for Entry of Default Judgment against Defendant Kevin Romer is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. By Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 11/13/2014.(alowe)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No.

13-cv-03190-WYD-MEH

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEVIN ROMER,
Defendant.

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default
Judgment against Defendant Kevin Romer (ECF No. 33). In his Recommendation,
Magistrate Judge Hegarty recommends that the pending motion be granted in part and
denied in part. (Recommendation at 1, 15-16). 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 in part and denied in part 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. 35) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment against
Defendant Kevin Romer (ECF No. 33) is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART as
follows:
1.

Judgment shall enter in Plaintiff’s favor against Defendant Kevin Romer for

direct copyright infringement of the Plaintiff’s copyrighted works, as set forth in Count I of
the Complaint;
2.

Defendant Romer shall pay to Plaintiff the sum of $40,500.00 in statutory

damages, as authorized by 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), and $1,652.00 for attorney’s fees and
costs as authorized by 17 U.S.C. § 505;

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-

3.

Defendant Romer shall permanently destroy all the digital media files

relating to, and copies of, Plaintiff’s copyrighted work made or used by him in violation of
Plaintiff’s exclusive rights, as well as all master copies in his possession, custody or
control from which such copies may be reproduced; and
4.

Plaintiff’s request to “[p]ermanently enjoin Defendant and all other persons

who are in active concert or participation with Defendant from continuing to infringe
Plaintiff’s copyrighted works” is DENIED.
Dated: November 13, 2014

BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
WILEY Y. DANIEL,
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-