Lisson v. O'Hare ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    April 16, 2009
    No. 07-51151
    Summary Calendar                    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    STEPHEN N LISSON
    Plaintiff-Appellant
    v.
    A.L. MARK O’HARE; ASSET RESEARCH GROUP
    Defendants-Appellees
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. 1:05-CV-114
    Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Plaintiff-Appellant Stephen N. Lisson appeals the take-nothing judgment
    rendered against him in this action for copyright and trademark infringement
    and computer fraud. The district court entered judgment on the magistrate
    judge’s recommendation after Lisson failed to file a timely objection to the
    magistrate judge’s report. That recommendation had been entered after Lisson
    chose not to put on evidence of damages because he believed that the magistrate
    judge was required to recuse himself after his law clerk viewed publicly
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .
    R. 47.5.4.
    No. 07-51151
    accessible portions of Lisson’s website, InsiderCV.com, which was the subject of
    Lisson’s infringement and fraud claims.
    If a case is assigned to a magistrate judge without a party’s consent, as
    Lisson’s was, that party is entitled to file objections within 10 days after
    receiving a copy of the magistrate judge’s recommendation and to have those
    objections reviewed de novo by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); F ED.
    R. C IV. P. 72(b). But a party’s failure timely to file such written objection creates
    a bar to that party’s “attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual
    findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court,” except for plain
    error, “provided that the party has been served with notice that such
    consequences will result from a failure to object.” Douglass v. United Services
    Auto Ass’n, 
    79 F.3d 1415
    , 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Lisson was served
    with such a notice. The plain error standard has application even if the district
    court has, as in Lisson’s case, alternatively accepted the magistrate judge’s
    recommendation on de novo review. 
    Id. at 1429.
          “To prevail on plain error review,” a party must demonstrate an error that
    was clear or obvious, that the error affected his substantial rights, and that “the
    fairness, integrity, or public reputation of [his] judicial proceedings” would be
    seriously affected if the error were not corrected. Norton v. Dimazana, 
    122 F.3d 286
    , 289 (5th Cir. 1997). “It is the unusual case that will present [plain] error.”
    Highlands Ins. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 
    27 F.3d 1027
    ,
    1032 (5th Cir. 1994).
    An error is considered plain only if it is clear or obvious under existing law.
    United States v. Olano, 
    507 U.S. 725
    , 734 (1993). Whether entry of judgment on
    the magistrate judge’s recommendation was plainly erroneous depends on how
    this court and other courts interpreted the law at the time the district court
    ruled. See United States v. Garcia-Rodriguez, 
    415 F.3d 452
    , 455 (5th Cir. 2005).
    If the law was unsettled, any error by the district court would not be clear or
    readily apparent. United States v. Dupre, 
    117 F.3d 810
    , 817 (5th Cir. 1997).
    2
    No. 07-51151
    Lisson cites no case in which this court has made it plain that a judge
    must recuse himself simply because he or his law clerk has viewed a website
    that is the subject of default proceedings to prove damages. Although one case
    cited by Lisson, Kennedy v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 
    551 F.2d 593
    , 596
    (5th Cir. 1977), bears some superficial similarities to the facts in his case, it also
    presents significant differences. In Kennedy, a law clerk took a private view of
    evidence for purposes related to determining fault and then, on instruction of the
    district judge, communicated to defense counsel what he had seen, eventually
    resulting in (a) the district court’s having to advise plaintiff of the viewing and
    of the ex-parte communication and (b) plaintiff’s calling the clerk to testify. See
    
    Kennedy, 515 F.2d at 597
    . We held that “the potential for prejudice to the
    defendants’ case was too great . . . to conclude that the . . . overruling of the
    defendants’ motion to prohibit” the clerk from testifying before the jury “or, in
    the alternative, to disqualify [the district judge] from continuing in the trial was
    harmless error.”     
    Id. at 598-99.
        Here, however, there was no chance of
    prejudicing a jury, and Lisson adduced no admission or other proof that the law
    clerk ever related anything about the website to the magistrate judge other than
    the fact of his visit. Moreover, “[m]ere prior knowledge of some facts” germane
    to a suit “is not in itself necessarily sufficient to require disqualification.” United
    States v. Seiffert, 
    501 F.2d 974
    , 978 (5th Cir. 1974).
    Notably missing from Lisson’s brief is any description of the damage he
    suffered, i.e., an explication of what of his was taken or otherwise harmed by the
    defendants. Section 455(b) dictates disqualification if the judicial officer has
    “personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts.”           § 455(b)(1) (emphasis
    added). Lisson has not shown what, if anything at all, about his website was
    disputed for purposes of a damages assessment. Consequently Lisson has not
    shown plain error. See 
    Garcia-Rodriguez, 415 F.3d at 455
    ; 
    Dupre, 117 F.3d at 817
    .
    AFFIRMED.
    3