EMI April Music, Inc. et al v. K&K Corporation et al

Filing 29

OPINION and ORDER - No objections having been made, the court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendations for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendations 27 . Signed on 1/10/13 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

EMI APRIL MUSIC, INC.,
HUNGLIKEYOURA (MUSIC), HIDEOUT
RECORDS DISTRIBUTORS, INC. (GEAR
PUBLISHING DIVISION), INNOCENT
BYSTANDER, UNIVERSAL-POLYGRAM
INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING, INC.,
and WRITE TREAT AGE MUSIC,

Case No. 3:12-cv-01143-PK

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiffs,
v.
K&K CORPORATION, an Oregon
corporation, and WANDA HEMENWAY,
Defendants.

SIMON, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Paul Papak filed Findings and Recommendations in this case on
December 14, 2012. Dkt. 27. Judge Papak recommended that the Court grant in part and deny in
part Plaintiffs’ motion for an award of attorney fees and bill of costs, Dkts. 22 and 25, and
Plaintiffs should be awarded a total of $7,948.25. No party has filed objections.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act, the court may “accept, reject or modify, in whole or
in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a
party files objections to a magistrate’s findings and recommendations, “the court shall make a
de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

If, however, no objections are filed, the Magistrates Act does not prescribe any standard
of review. In such cases, “[t]here is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Magistrates Act]
intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report[.]” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 152 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en
banc) (court must review de novo magistrate’s findings and recommendations if objection is
made, “but not otherwise”).
Although in the absence of objections no review is required, the Magistrates Act “does
not preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other
standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 72(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court
review the magistrate’s findings and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”
No objections having been made, the court follows the recommendation of the Advisory
Committee and reviews Magistrate Judge Papak’s Findings and Recommendations for clear error
on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the court ADOPTS Magistrate
Judge Papak’s Findings and Recommendations, Dkt. 27.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 10th day of January, 2013.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge

Page 2 – OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS