PAGE 1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

TYRONE BLOCKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNIVERSAL MUSIC CORPORATION; 

BANDMINE, INC.; SNOCAP, INC.; and 

EBAY INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:14-cv-01650-SB

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and 

Recommendation in this case on December 15, 2015. Dkt. 76. Judge Beckerman recommended 

that the Court grant the pending motions to dismiss filed by eBay Inc. and Universal Music 

Corporation (Dkts. 60, 63), find that Plaintiff has also failed to state a claim against the nonmoving defendants Bandmine, Inc. and SnoCap, Inc., and enter a judgment dismissing this case 

in its entirety with prejudice. No party has filed objections.

Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in 

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate’s findings and recommendations, “the court 

Case 3:14-cv-01650-SB Document 79 Filed 01/06/16 Page 1 of 3
PAGE 2 – ORDER

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings 

or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

If no party objects, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 

474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended 

to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”); 

United States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that the 

court must review de novo magistrate’s findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but 

not otherwise”). 

Although review is not required in the absence of objections, the Act “does not preclude 

further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” 

Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 

recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court review the magistrate’s findings 

and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”

No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory 

Committee and reviews Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the 

face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge 

Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation, Dkt. 76. The motions to dismiss filed by eBay Inc.

and Universal Music Corporation (Dkts. 60, 63) are GRANTED. Additionally, Plaintiff has 

failed to state a claim against the non-moving defendants Bandmine, Inc. and SnoCap, Inc. 

Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED in its entirety, against all defendants, with prejudice. The 

Court further finds that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and 

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should be revoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 

Case 3:14-cv-01650-SB Document 79 Filed 01/06/16 Page 2 of 3
PAGE 3 – ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 6th day of January, 2016.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01650-SB Document 79 Filed 01/06/16 Page 3 of 3