Jacobs v. Memphis Convention and Visitors Bureau et al

Filing 122

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 121 Report and Recommendations; granting 109 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 09/25/2012.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

JEFFREY JACOBS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MEMPHIS CONVENTION AND
VISITORS BUREAU,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 09-2599

)
)

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Plaintiff Jeffrey Jacobs’ (“Jacobs”)
Motion for Attorney Fees, Expenses, and Costs of November 15,
2011.

(ECF No. 109.)

The Memphis Convention and Visitors

Bureau (“MCVB”) responded on December 6, 2011.

(ECF No. 112.)

The Motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Charmiane G. Claxton
on May 31, 2012.

(ECF No. 117.)

On September 7, 2012,

Magistrate Judge Claxton filed her Report and Recommendation
recommending that Jacobs be awarded $167,022.50 in reasonable
attorneys’ fees and $4,676.25 in costs and expenses.
121.)
I.

(ECF No.

Neither party has filed an objection.
Background

Jacobs, a professional photographer, brought suit against MCVB
and others for copyright infringement on September 14, 2009.
(Compl., ECF No. 1.)

At trial, the jury found that MCVB had

infringed Jacobs’ copyrights in and to four photographs, and
that the infringements of two of those copyrights were willful.
(Order on Jury Verdict, ECF No. 108.)1
damages of $54,500.00 plus interest.

The jury awarded Jacobs
(Id.)

Jacobs moved for

attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses under the Copyright Act, 17
U.S.C. § 505, on the ground that he was the prevailing party.
II.

Law and Analysis

A “district judge must determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected
to.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

After reviewing the evidence, the court is free to accept,
reject, or modify the proposed findings or recommendations of
the magistrate judge.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

The district

court need not “‘review...a [magistrate judge’s] factual or
legal conclusions [] under a de novo or any other standard, when
neither party objects to those findings.’”

Satkiewicz v.

Michigan, No. 2:11-cv-14370, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124403, at *3
(E.D. Mich. Aug. 31, 2012.) (quoting Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 150 (1985) (emphasis in original)).

The Supreme Court has

“expressly concluded that a district court should adopt the
findings and rulings of the magistrate judge to which no
specific objection is filed.”

1

United Stated v. Maness, No. 10-

All other defendants were dismissed voluntarily or by court order before the
conclusion of trial.

20348, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92238, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. July 3,
2012.)

(citing Arn, 474 U.S. at 151).

Otherwise, a district

court would be forced "to review every issue in every case, no
matter how thorough the magistrate's analysis and even if both
parties were satisfied with the magistrate's report. . . .
[which] would be an inefficient use of judicial resources." Id.
(internal citations omitted); accord Javaherpour v. United
States, 315 Fed. Appx. 505, 509 (6th Cir. 2009). The parties
have not objected to the Magistrate Judge's

Report. Thus, “the

Magistrate Judge's determination become[s] that of the district
court."

Maness, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92238, at *3 (internal

citations omitted).
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation, and GRANTS Jacobs’ Motion in
the amount of $167,022.50 in reasonable attorneys’ fees and
$4,676.25 in costs and expenses.

So ordered this 25th day of September, 2012.

s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr.____
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE