Blocker v. Universal Music Publishing Group

Filing 79

ORDER - No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Acco rdingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation, Dkt. 76 . The motions to dismiss filed by eBay Inc. and Universal Music Corporation (Dkts. 60 , 63 ) are GRANTED. Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim aga inst the non-moving defendants Bandmine, Inc. and SnoCap, Inc. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED in its entirety, against all defendants, with prejudice. The Court further finds that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status should be revoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).Signed 1/6/2016 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

TYRONE BLOCKER,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:14-cv-01650-SB
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION

v.
UNIVERSAL MUSIC CORPORATION;
BANDMINE, INC.; SNOCAP, INC.; and
EBAY INC.,
Defendants.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and
Recommendation in this case on December 15, 2015. Dkt. 76. Judge Beckerman recommended
that the Court grant the pending motions to dismiss filed by eBay Inc. and Universal Music
Corporation (Dkts. 60, 63), find that Plaintiff has also failed to state a claim against the nonmoving defendants Bandmine, Inc. and SnoCap, Inc., and enter a judgment dismissing this case
in its entirety with prejudice. No party has filed objections.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“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
PAGE 1 – ORDER

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 no party objects, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended
to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”);
United States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that the
court must review de novo magistrate’s findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but
not otherwise”).
Although review is not required in the absence of objections, the 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)
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 party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory
Committee and reviews Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the
face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge
Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation, Dkt. 76. The motions to dismiss filed by eBay Inc.
and Universal Music Corporation (Dkts. 60, 63) are GRANTED. Additionally, Plaintiff has
failed to state a claim against the non-moving defendants Bandmine, Inc. and SnoCap, Inc.
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED in its entirety, against all defendants, with prejudice. The
Court further finds that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and
Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should be revoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

PAGE 2 – ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 6th day of January, 2016.

/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge

PAGE 3 – ORDER