riLlED IN SEERK'S OFFICE COURT E.D.N.Y. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AUG 302019 * eee eee ee eee eee eee ee ne eee eee nee eee X LIVE FACE ON WEB, LLC, “LYN OFFICE Plaintiff, NOT FOR PUBLICATION -against- ORDER 15-CV-7415 (CBA) (SJB) 17-CV-1171 (CB BF ADVANCE, LLC, 7-CV-1171 (CBA) (SIB) JOSEPH COHEN, Defendants. eee ee ee ee ee eee eee een ee eX AMON, United States District Judge: Plaintiff brought an action for violation of the Copyright Act,

ef seg., on

December 30, 2015, against BF Advance, LLC and any John Doe defendants owning or controlling the BF Advance website (“LFOW I”). (15-CV-7415 D.E. #1.) On September 15, 2016, Plaintiff

moved to amend its Complaint to add Joseph Cohen as a defendant and eliminate the John Doe

defendants. (LFOW I D.E. #29; D.E. #30 (order granting motion to amend).) Plaintiff then

commenced a separate action (“LFOW II”), bringing the same Copyright Act claims against Molly Cohen. (17-CV-1171 D.E. #1.) On February 6, 2018, Plaintiff notified the Court that both actions

had settled. (LFOW I and LFOW II orders dated Feb. 6, 2018.) The parties filed joint stipulations of dismissal with prejudice on February 14, 2018, (LFOW I D.E. # 103; LFOW II D.E. # 25), and

both cases were closed on February 16, 2018. Then, on October 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion

in both cases to enforce the settlement agreement, (LFOW I D.E. # 106; LFOW II D.E. # 27), and

the Court referred the motion to the Honorable Sanket J. Bulsara, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). On August 5, 2019, Magistrate Judge Bulsara submitted a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff's motions for costs and fees. (LFOW I D.E. #114; LFOW IT D.E. # 29.)

No party has objected to the R&R, and the time for doing so has passed. When deciding whether to adopt a report and recommendation, a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). To accept those portions of the R&R to which no timely objection has been made, “a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Jarvis v.N. Am. Globex Fund, L.P.,

(E.D.N.Y. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court has reviewed the record and, finding no clear error, adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff's requests for costs and fees. SO ORDERED. LO Dated: August, 2019 s/Carol Bagley Amon Brooklyn! New York □ □□ = = ~ = United States DistrieJud