From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Malibu Media, LLC v. Benson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Jun 20, 2014
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02394-WYD-MEH (D. Colo. Jun. 20, 2014)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 13-cv-02394-WYD-MEH

06-20-2014

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, Plaintiff, v. JEREMIAH BENSON, Defendant.


Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel


ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS MATTER is before the Court on plaintiff, Malibu Media, LLC's, Partially Unopposed Motion To Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defenses [ECF No. 26] and Magistrate Judge Hegarty's Recommendation [ECF No. 38]. I referred Malibu Media, LLC's motion to Magistrate Judge Hegarty on February 25, 2014. ECF No. 27. On April 11, 2014, Magistrate Judge Hegarty issued a Recommendation on Malibu Media, LLC's motion and stated that the motion should be granted. Magistrate Judge Hegarty's Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Rule 72(b) of the FEDERAL RULES of CIVIL PROCEDURE, and D.C.COLO.LCivR. 72.1.

Magistrate Judge Hegarty advised the parties that they had 14 days after service of a copy of his Recommendation to file objections to the Recommendation. ECF No. 38, p. 1, n.1. As of Friday, June 20, 2014, no party has filed objections. Because the parties did not file objections, I am vested with discretion to review the Recommendation "under any standard [I] deem[] appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that "[i]t 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"). Nonetheless, though not required to do so, I review the Recommendation to "satisfy [my]self that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Advisory Committee Notes to FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).

Note, this standard of review is something less than a "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard of review, FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo review, FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).

Having reviewed the Recommendation, I am satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. I find that Magistrate Judge Hegarty's Recommendation is thorough, well-reasoned, and sound. Further, I agree that Malibu Media, LLC's Partially Unopposed Motion To Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defenses [ECF No. 26] should be granted.

CONCLUSION

After careful consideration of the matters before this Court, it is

ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hegarty's Recommendation [ECF No. 38] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Accordingly, it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Malibu Media, LLC's Partially Unopposed Motion To Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defenses [ECF No. 26] is GRANTED and defendant, Jeremiah Benson's, first, second, fourth, and fifth affirmative defenses, as stated in his Answer [ECF No. 21], are STRICKEN.

BY THE COURT:

__________

Wiley Y. Daniel

Senior U. S. District Judge


Summaries of

Malibu Media, LLC v. Benson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Jun 20, 2014
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02394-WYD-MEH (D. Colo. Jun. 20, 2014)
Case details for

Malibu Media, LLC v. Benson

Case Details

Full title:MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, Plaintiff, v. JEREMIAH BENSON, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Jun 20, 2014

Citations

Civil Action No. 13-cv-02394-WYD-MEH (D. Colo. Jun. 20, 2014)

Citing Cases

Medina v. Safeway Inc.

Courts within this district have held that the requirement that a complaint set forth sufficient factual…

Crocs, Inc. v. Joybees, Inc.

Courts in this district have held that the requirement that a complaint set forth sufficient factual matter…