August 15, 2025 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

TIFFANY AUTUMN § CIVIL ACTION NO LUNA-VIDES, § 4:24-cv-03215 Plaintiff, § § § vs. § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § SABRINA ANNLYNN § CARPENTER and § ISLAND DEF JAM § MUSIC GROUP, § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Tiffany Autumn Luna-Vides proceeds here pro se. She filed a complaint asserting copyright infringement against Defendants Sabrina Carpenter and Island Def Jam Music Group. Dkt 1. The matter was referred for pretrial management to Magistrate Judge Christina Bryan. Dkt 5. Pending is a Memorandum and Recommendation by Judge Bryan in which she disposes of a motion to dismiss by Defendants. Dkt 26. She recommends that the motion (i) be granted as to lack of personal jurisdiction over Sabrina Carpenter, with dismissal being without prejudice, and (ii) be granted for failure to state a plausible claim for copyright infringement against UMG Recordings, Inc, with dismissal being with prejudice. Plaintiff filed timely objections. Dkt 27. The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) &

(b)(1)(C); see also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir 1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v PPG Industries Inc,

(5th Cir 2005), citing Douglass v United Services Automobile Association,

(5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b) advisory committee note (1983). The Memorandum and Recommendation clearly details the pertinent facts and correctly applies controlling law. Upon de novo review and determination, Plaintiffs objections lack merit. No clear error otherwise appears upon review and consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and the applicable law. The objection by Plaintiff to the Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is OVERRULED. Dkt 27. To the extent Plaintiff also filed an unauthorized and untimely further objection to the Memorandum and Recommendation, it is OVERRULED as untimely and improper under

(b)(1)(c). Dkt 35. The Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this Court. Dkt 26. The motion to dismiss by Defendants is GRANTED. Dkt 26. Defendant Sabrina Carpenter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendant UMG Recordings, Inc, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim. A FINAL JUDGMENT will enter separately. SO ORDERED. Signed on August 15, 2025, at Houston, Texas.

Ahad. Hon. Charles Eskridge United States District Judge