Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.165.232.125

Filing 60

ORDER that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Hegarty ECF No. 58 is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment ECF No. 50 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 7/14/2015.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-03358-WYD-MEH
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUSTIN WINKLER,
Defendant.

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 50). In his Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Hegarty recommends that the
pending motion be granted in part and denied in part. (Recommendation at 1, 19). 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. Plaintiff has properly established no genuine issue
of material fact that the Defendant copied 28 of the 39 films at issue in violation of the
Copyright Act. However, Plaintiff has failed to establish no factual issues as to whether
Defendant illegally copied the remaining 11 films.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Hegarty
(ECF No. 58) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 50) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

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-

Dated: July 14, 2015
BY THE COURT:

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

-3-