Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Chambers v. Amazon.Com Inc.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division

July 1, 2015

Roland Chambers, Jr., c/o Reliable Brokering, Plaintiff,
v.
Amazon.com Inc.; Apple Inc.; Artist Direct.com; Bop.fm; CCMusic.com; CD Baby; CD Universe; HBDirect.com; Rakuten.com; Sears.com; Tower.com, Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

Mary G. Lewis United States District Judge

Pro Se Plaintiff Roland Chambers (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against Defendants Amazon.com Inc., Apple Inc., Artist Direct.com, Bop.fm, CCMusic.com, CD Baby; CD Universe, HBDirect.com, Rakuten.com, Sears.com, and Tower.com (collectively “Defendants”) alleging that Defendants infringed on Plaintiff’s exclusive right to reproduction of copyrighted material in violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., and violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 73.02 D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pretrial management and consideration of pretrial motions. Upon review of the complaint in accordance with the applicable law, the Magistrate Judge has issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this matter be summarily dismissed. (ECF No.13.) Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on February 23, 2015 (ECF No. 15) and a motion to expedite on May, 20, 2015. (ECF No. 18.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

ANALYSIS

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Complaint be summarily dismissed because it contains insufficient factual allegations to show a violation of the Copyright Act or Digital Millennium Copyright Act. (ECF No. 13 at 5-6.) Plaintiff objects to the Report, reiterating his claims of unauthorized duplication and/ or reproduction of copyrighted material and claiming that “validity and ownership of copyright” has been established. (ECF No. 15.) The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections de novo but Plaintiff’s arguments fail to cast any doubt on the well-reasoned substantive findings and analysis of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff’s complaint and the attachments, which primarily detail his alleged damages, fail to provide sufficient factual support for the Copyright Act or Digital Millennium Copyright Act allegations made by Ronald Chambers as the sole Plaintiff in this case. The Court finds no error and Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above and in the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s objections are overruled and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is accepted. (ECF No. 13.) This matter is hereby summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Plaintiff’s motion to expedite is denied as moot. (ECF No. 18.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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