Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

MacALMON MUSIC, LLC v. MAURICE SKLAR MINISTRIES, INC., 13-cv-02471-PAB-CBS. (2015)

Court: District Court, D. Colorado Number: infdco20150225a93 Visitors: 5
Filed: Feb. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 24, 2015
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Amended Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer filed on February 4, 2015 [Docket No. 45]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on February 4, 2015. No party has objected to the Recommendati
More

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION

PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Amended Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer filed on February 4, 2015 [Docket No. 45]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on February 4, 2015. No party has objected to the Recommendation.

In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge's recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. See Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("[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"). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is "no clear error on the face of the record."1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED as follows:

1. The Amended Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 45] is ACCEPTED.

2. The Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 36] filed by plaintiff MacAlmon Music, LLC is GRANTED, and judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants Maurice Sklar and Devorah J. Sklar.

3. Default judgment is entered against defendant Maurice Sklar Ministries, Inc. as a sanction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and 37 and the Court's inherent powers to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of its docket. The sanction is based on defendant's failure to comply with the Court's orders, the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to appear at the December 4, 2014 status conference, and failure to respond to the court's Order to Show Cause.

4. Plaintiff shall recover from defendants, jointly and severally: (1) actual damages in the amount of $27,000 based on defendants' willful infringement of "Instrumental Worship I" and violations of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-105(a); statutory damages in the amount of $30,000 based on defendants' willful infringement of "Draw Me Unto You"; (c) prejudgment and postjudgment interest on the total damages award; and (d) reasonable attorney's fees and costs, upon submission by plaintiff of an affidavit and documentation of attorney's fees and a bill of costs.

5. Defendants, their employees, agents, and all persons acting under their direction, control, or with their permission shall be enjoined from unlawfully copying, using, displaying, distributing, or offering for sale unauthorized derivative versions of the MacAlmon Works, as that term is defined in the Recommendation, without license or permission or otherwise infringing the copyrights in the MacAlmon Works.

6. This case is closed.

FootNotes


1. 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).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer