Edward Dion Calvin v. Phoenix Police Department, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: April 9, 2026
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01784
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Edward Dion Calvin, No. CV-24-01784-PHX-GMS (DMF)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Phoenix Police Department, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Edward Dion Calvin, who was previously confined in the Maricopa County 16 Jail, brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Phoenix 17 Police Department and Phoenix Police Officer Michael Paulson. (Doc. 9). Before the 18 Court is Defendant Paulson’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19) and the Report and 19 Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine recommending the Court 20 grant Defendant Paulson’s Motion to Dismiss without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure 21 to prosecute and failure to notify the Court of his change of address. (Doc. 22). 22 The Court will adopt the R&R and grant Defendant Paulson’s Motion to Dismiss. 23 I. Background 24 In Plaintiff’s one-count Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues the City of 25 Phoenix and Phoenix Police Officer Michael Paulson for money damages. Plaintiff alleges 26 Defendant Paulson violated his Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive physical 27 force on him during arrest. Plaintiff alleged Defendant City of Phoenix failed to train its 28 officers on “when to properly use deadly force.” 1 The Court’s May 23, 2025 screening order (Doc. 10) dismissed Defendant City of 2 Phoenix for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim against it and Defendant Paulson was 3 required to answer the Second Amended Complaint. 4 II. Procedural History and Posture 5 The Court’s May 23, 2025 screening order directed and warned that “Plaintiff must 6 file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule 83.3(d) of the Local 7 Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other relief with a notice 8 of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this action” (Id. at 4). 9 Additionally, the Court warned that “[i]f Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every 10 provision of this Order, including these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without 11 further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district 12 court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the Court)” (Id. at 5). 13 On August 6, 2025, Defendant Paulson filed an Answer to the Second Amended 14 Complaint’s excessive force claim against him through his counsel of record at the Phoenix 15 City Attorney’s Office (Doc. 13). On August 7, 2025, the Court issued a Scheduling and 16 Discovery Order (Doc. 14). On December 15, 2025, Defendant Paulson filed a motion for 17 leave to depose Plaintiff (Doc. 15), which the Court granted the same day (Doc. 16), noting 18 that the Court previously authorized Plaintiff’s deposition (Id. at 1; see Doc. 14 at 3). 19 Defendant Paulson then promptly noticed Plaintiff’s deposition, sending a copy to Plaintiff 20 at his address of record (Doc. 17). 21 The Order granting leave to depose Plaintiff (Doc. 16) was mailed to Plaintiff at his 22 address of record on the day of its filing but was returned to the Court as undeliverable a 23 few weeks later (Doc. 18). 24 On January 26, 2026, Defendant Paulson filed the pending Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 25 19) for Plaintiff’s failure to appear at a deposition and to comply with this Court’s Order 26 (Doc. 10), for not maintaining up to date contact information. 27 On the same day that Defendant Paulson filed the pending motion to dismiss, the 28 Court issued an Order warning about the need for Plaintiff to timely and properly respond 1 to the motion to dismiss (Doc. 20). The Order was mailed to Plaintiff at his address of 2 record on the day of its filing but was returned to the Court as undeliverable (Doc. 21); the 3 returned envelope stated that Plaintiff was no longer in custody (Id.). Pursuant to General 4 Order 14-10, the Clerk of Court then discontinued mailing until a new address for Plaintiff 5 is received. 1 6 Plaintiff has not filed any change of address. Indeed, Plaintiff has not filed anything 7 with the Court since he returned the service packet for Defendant Paulson in June 2025. 8 II. Report and Recommendation 9 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 10 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that 11 the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 12 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 13 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); accord Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 14 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[f]ollowing Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review 15 of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not 16 otherwise’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 17 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the 18 [magistrate judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object”). District courts are not 19 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 20 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 21 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those 22 portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made”). 23 Neither party filed objections to the Court’s March 17, 2026 R&R. The Court is 24 therefore not obligated to review the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 25 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“[t]he district judge must 26 27 1 Plaintiff cannot be located through the publicly available Arizona Department of 28 Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry Inmate Locator. See https://corrections.az.gov/inmate-data-search (last accessed 3/16/2026). 1 || determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 2|| objected to”). 3 Even so, the Court has reviewed Judge Fine’s R&R. As set forth above, since 4|| December 2025, numerous documents mailed from the Court to Plaintiff have been 5 || returned in the mail, establishing that Plaintiff has failed to notify the Court of his change of address as required under the Local Rule and as directed in prior Court Order, and he 7\| has abandoned his case. (/d. at 7). 8 The Court therefore accepts and adopts the R&R. Defendant Paulson’s Motion to 9|| Dismiss (Doc. 19) will be granted and this action will be dismissed without prejudice 10] pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 11 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 12 (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is adopted. 13 (2) Defendant Paulson’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19) is granted. 14 (3) The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action. 15 Dated this 9th day of April, 2026.

18 Senior United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-