Chambers v. Amazon.com Inc et al

Filing 20

OPINION AND ORDER accepting 13 Report and Recommendation, dismissing this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process, denying as moot 18 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 7/1/2015. (cbru, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Roland Chambers, Jr.,
c/o Reliable Brokering,

) Civil Action No.: 3:14-cv-4890-MGL
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
)
)
Amazon.com Inc.; Apple Inc.; Artist
)
Direct.com; Bop.fm; CCMusic.com; CD
)
Baby; CD Universe; HBDirect.com;
)
Rakuten.com; Sears.com; Tower.com,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________
Pro Se Plaintiff Roland Chambers (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against Defendants
Amazon.com Inc., Apple Inc., Artist Direct.com, Bop.fm, CCMusic.com, CD Baby; CD
Universe, HBDirect.com, Rakuten.com, Sears.com, and Tower.com (collectively
“Defendants”) alleging that Defendants infringed on Plaintiff’s exclusive right to
reproduction of copyrighted material in violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et
seq., and violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq. Pursuant
to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 73.02 D.S.C., this matter was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pretrial management and
consideration of pretrial motions. Upon review of the complaint in accordance with the
applicable law, the Magistrate Judge has issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that this matter be summarily dismissed. (ECF No.13.) Plaintiff filed
objections to the Report on February 23, 2015 (ECF No. 15) and a motion to expedite on
May, 20, 2015. (ECF No. 18.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report
and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final
determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270, 96 S.Ct.
549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination
of any portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report to which a specific objection is made. The
Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the
Magistrate Judge or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
ANALYSIS
The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Complaint be summarily dismissed
because it contains insufficient factual allegations to show a violation of the Copyright Act
or Digital Millennium Copyright Act. (ECF No. 13 at 5-6.) Plaintiff objects to the Report,
reiterating his claims of unauthorized duplication and/ or reproduction of copyrighted
material and claiming that “validity and ownership of copyright” has been established.
(ECF No. 15.) The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections de novo but Plaintiff’s
arguments fail to cast any doubt on the well-reasoned substantive findings and analysis
of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff’s complaint and the attachments, which primarily detail
his alleged damages, fail to provide sufficient factual support for the Copyright Act or Digital
Millennium Copyright Act allegations made by Ronald Chambers as the sole Plaintiff in this
case. The Court finds no error and Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.

-2-

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set out above and in the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s
objections are overruled and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is
accepted. (ECF No. 13.) This matter is hereby summarily dismissed without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process. Plaintiff’s motion to expedite is denied as moot.
(ECF No. 18.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge

Columbia, South Carolina
July 1, 2015

*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the
date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

-3-