Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Purzel Video GmbH v. Smoak

United States District Court, D. Colorado

October 1, 2014

PURZEL VIDEO GmbH, Plaintiff,
v.
BENITO SMOAK, Defendant

Order Filed: June 26, 2014

Page 1223

For Purzel Video GmbH, Plaintiff, Counter Defendant: Sarah S. Burns, Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides & Barnerd, LLC, Alton, IL; Paul Alan Lesko, Simmons Hanly & Conroy, LLC, Alton, IL.

Benito Smoak, Defendant, Pro se, Lakewood, CO.

Page 1224

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

WILEY Y. DANIEL, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion and Memorandum for Default Judgment against Defendant Benito Smoak (ECF No. 69). In his Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Hegarty recommends that the pending motion be granted in part and denied in part. (Recommendation at 1, 16-17). The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).

Magistrate Judge Hegarty advised the parties that written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after service of a copy of the Recommendation. (Recommendation at 1). Despite this advisement, no objections were filed to the Recommendation. No objections having been filed, 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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (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

Page 1225

error on the face of the record." [1] See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes.

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. I agree with Magistrate Judge Hegarty that the pending motion should be granted in part and denied in part for the reasons stated in both the Recommendation and this Order.

Based on the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Hegarty (ECF No. 72) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion and Memorandum for Default Judgment against Defendant Benito Smoak (ECF No. 69) is DENIED IN ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.