1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

AUTHOR J. MANNING, JR., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

PARAMOUNT, et al., 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-444-JDK-JDL 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE IN PART 

Plaintiff Author J. Manning, Jr. brought this pro se copyright action against 

Defendant Paramount in state court on May 9, 2023. Paramount subsequently 

removed the case to federal court. The case was referred to United States Magistrate 

Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for 

the disposition of the case. On September 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended 

complaint adding several new defendants. Docket No. 11. 

Before the Court is Defendant Paramount’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s first 

amended complaint. Docket No. 15. 

I.

On October 19, 2023, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that the Court 

dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Paramount with prejudice pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Docket No. 19. 

Defendant Paramount filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Docket 

Case 6:23-cv-00444-JDK-JDL Document 38 Filed 12/18/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 244
2 

No. 24. Plaintiff has also filed four documents, including a “Motion to Reinstate the 

Case” (Docket No. 21), a “Motion for New Trial” (Docket No. 22), a “Response [to] 

Motion to Dismiss” (Docket No. 23), and a “Motion to Appeal” (Docket No. 26), which 

appear to respond to the Report and Recommendation. The Court will construe 

these documents as Plaintiff’s objections to the Report. 

II.

Where a party timely objects to the Report and Recommendation, the Court 

reviews the objected-to findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo. 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire 

record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other 

grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from 

ten to fourteen days). 

III.

A. Paramount’s Objections

Paramount does not object to the recommendation to dismiss the claims 

against it with prejudice. Rather, Paramount objects to Judge Love’s decision not to 

address Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Viacom CBS because Plaintiff had not 

yet served Viacom with process. Docket No. 19 at 2 n.1. 

Paramount argues that Viacom and Paramount are the same entity, and 

therefore Plaintiff properly served Viacom when he served Paramount. Docket No. 20 

at 2. Paramount asks the Court to take judicial notice that Paramount and Viacom 

are the same entity pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201. Docket No. 20 at 3. 

Case 6:23-cv-00444-JDK-JDL Document 38 Filed 12/18/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 245
3 

The Court agrees. Because Paramount and Viacom are the same entity, the 

motion to dismiss should be construed as to both named parties. For the same 

reasons Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a claim against Paramount, it 

fails to state a claim against Viacom. See Docket No. 19 at 4–5. Accordingly, the 

Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against both Paramount and Viacom with 

prejudice. 

B. Plaintiff’s Objections

Plaintiff’s filings merely reiterate the claim that Paramount and others use 

various intellectual properties that he created or owns without authorization or 

compensation. E.g., Docket No. 23. Plaintiff states that this case must not be 

dismissed but does not explain why. See id. Plaintiff’s motion to appeal likewise fails 

to identify any error in the Magistrate Judge’s Report. Docket No. 26. Plaintiff 

also asks the Court to reinstate the case and requests a new trial. See Docket Nos. 

21, 22. But the Court has not entered a final order or held a trial in this case. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the case (Docket No. 21) and motion 

for a new trial (Docket No. 22) are DENIED as moot, and any objections 

by Plaintiff are OVERRULED. 

IV.

Having conducted a de novo review of the record in this case and the 

Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court has determined that the Report of the 

Magistrate Judge is correct, and Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. Accordingly, 

the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 19) as

the opinion of the District Court with the exception of footnote 1 (see Docket No. 19 

Case 6:23-cv-00444-JDK-JDL Document 38 Filed 12/18/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 246
4 

at 2 n.1). The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 15). 

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Paramount and Viacom CBS are DISMISSED

with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state 

a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18th December, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00444-JDK-JDL Document 38 Filed 12/18/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 247