Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.196.184.170

Filing 33

ORDER that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Hegarty ECF No. 31 is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Entry of Default Judgment against Defendant Andrew Davis ECF No. 28 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 2/2/2015.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00179-WYD-MEH
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW DAVIS,
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 Andrew Davis (ECF No. 28). 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 a
default should enter in favor of the Plaintiff and against Defendant Andrew Davis 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. 31) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment against
Defendant Andrew Davis (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART
as follows:
1. Judgment shall enter in Plaintiff’s favor against Defendant Davis for direct
copyright infringement of the Plaintiff’s copyrighted works, as set forth in Count I of the
Amended Complaint;
2. Defendant Davis is ordered to pay to Plaintiff the sum of $31,500.00 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 Davis is ordered to permanently destroy all of the digital media files
relating to, and copies of, Plaintiff’s copyrighted works made or used by him in violation of
Plaintiff’s exclusive rights, as well as all masters in his possession, custody or control from
which such copies may be reproduced; and
4. Plaintiff’s request, if sought, 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: February 2, 2015
BY THE COURT:

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

-3-