Summary
declining to order sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 where plaintiff sued for copyright infringement notwithstanding defendant's pre-filing proffer of evidence to the contrary because "[p]laintiff may be understandably and even reasonably skeptical of a defendant's assertion of innocence," and "has a constitutional right to file a lawsuit and engage in discovery to determine" whether there was infringement
Summary of this case from Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Co.Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01873-RBJ
04-05-2013
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, Plaintiff, v. LINDSEY MANESS, Defendant.
Honorable R. Brooke Jackson
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the December 4, 2012 Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty [docket #33]. As relevant here, the Recommendation addresses defendant's Motion for Attorney's Fees [#24]. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. However, no objection was filed by either party. "In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate's report under any standard it deems appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("It 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.")).
The Court has reviewed the relevant pleadings concerning the Recommendation. Based on this review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's analyses and recommendations are correct, and that "there is no clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation as the findings and conclusions of this Court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#33] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Defendant's Motion for Attorney's Fees [#24] is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
____________
R. Brooke Jackson
United States District Judge