Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner Inc.
Citation: 53 F. App'x 455Docket: No. 02-15269; D.C. No. CV-01-01480-WBS(DAD)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; December 12, 2002; Federal Appellate Court
Paul Andrew Mitchell appeals the district court's dismissal of his copyright infringement action and related claims, along with the denial of his motions for reconsideration and to strike findings made by the magistrate judge. The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirms the district court's decisions. The court reviews the dismissal de novo and agrees with the magistrate judge's findings that were adopted by the district court on January 25, 2002. The dismissal with prejudice was deemed appropriate as leave to amend would have been futile, following precedent in Reddy v. Litton Industries. Mitchell's motion to strike the magistrate's findings was denied because he did not file timely objections as required by local rule E.D. Cal L.R. 72-304(b). Additionally, he failed to present valid grounds for reconsideration of the dismissal, leading to the denial of his motion being appropriate under School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc. All remaining contentions on appeal were rejected, and all pending motions were denied. The court's decision is affirmed and noted as not appropriate for publication or citation in this circuit, except as outlined by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.