Phillip Lee Carson v. Charles L Ryan, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: February 2, 2026
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00196
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Phillip Lee Carson, No. CV-20-00196-PHX-DWL (CDB)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Charles L Ryan, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 This is a pro se prisoner civil rights action. In March 2023, after all of Plaintiff’s 16 claims were rejected via screening or at summary judgment, the then-assigned district 17 judge entered judgment. (Doc. 317.) Plaintiff then appealed. (Doc. 323.) In March 2025, 18 the Ninth Circuit affirmed in significant part but concluded that “dismissal without leave 19 to amend of Claims 1, 4, 6, and 7 was premature because it is not ‘absolutely clear’ that 20 any deficiencies could not be cured by amendment.” Carson v. Ryan, 2025 WL 893237, 21 *1 (9th Cir. 2025). The Ninth Circuit also held that “[t]he district court erred in dismissing 22 Carson’s Free Exercise Clause and RLUIPA claims (Claims 8 and 10).” Id. at *2. “In 23 sum, we affirm the district court’s summary judgment with respect to Claim 5 and affirm 24 the judgment dismissing Claim 9 as moot. As to the district court’s screening dismissal, 25 we affirm dismissal of Claims 2 and 3; vacate dismissal of Claims 1, 4, 6, and 7; reverse 26 dismissal of Claims 8 and 10; and remand for further proceedings.” Id. 27 Following remand, this case was referred to Magistrate Judge Bibles for all pretrial 28 proceedings (Doc. 340), Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) (Doc. 351), 1 and this case was reassigned to the undersigned judge (Doc. 387). 2 Following those developments, on December 1, 2025, Judge Bibles issued a detailed 3 report and recommendation (“R&R”) concluding that Counts 1, 4, 6, and 7 should again 4 be dismissed. (Doc. 406.) Plaintiff then, after seeking and obtaining an extension (Docs. 5 411, 412), filed objections to the R&R. (Doc. 429.) 6 “Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of the R&R], any party may 7 serve and file written objections . . . as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court 8 shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed 9 findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, 10 reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the 11 magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to 12 the magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 13 72(b)(2)-(3). “In providing for a de novo determination . . . Congress intended to permit 14 whatever reliance a district judge, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, chose to 15 place on a magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations. . . . [D]istrict courts 16 conduct proper de novo review where they state they have done so, even if the order fails 17 to specifically address a party’s objections.” United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 433 18 (9th Cir. 2023) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). See also id. at 434 (“[T]he 19 district court ha[s] no obligation to provide individualized analysis of each objection.”). 20 Additionally, district courts are not required to review any portion of an R&R to which no 21 specific objection has been made. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) 22 (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s 23 factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party 24 objects to those findings.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 25 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 26 recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). Thus, district judges 27 need not review an objection to an R&R that is general and non-specific. See, e.g., Warling 28 v. Ryan, 2013 WL 5276367, *2 (D. Ariz. 2013); Haley v. Stewart, 2006 WL 1980649, *2 (D. Ariz. 2006). 2 The Court has carefully reviewed Judge Bibles’s detailed R&R, as well as □□□□□□□□□□□ || objections, and concludes following de novo review that Plaintiff's objections should be overruled and the R&R should be adopted in full. The Court is particularly unpersuaded □□ by Plaintiff's contention that Judge “Bibles should have recused herself from this matter 6|| due to her allegiance to recused Judge Rosyln O. Silver.” (Doc. 429 at 1, cleaned up.) 7|| Plaintiff's attacks on Judge Bibles’s integrity are unfounded and entirely inappropriate. 8 || Nor has Plaintiff established a valid basis for an extension of time to raise objections 9|| regarding Counts 4, 6, and 7, particularly given that Plaintiff was previously granted an || extension to file objections. (Doc. 412 at 2 [Plaintiff shall have until January 9, 2026, to file any objections to the Report and Recommendation at ECF No. 406. This deadline will || not be further extended.”].) 13 Accordingly, 14 IT IS ORDERED that: 15 1. Plaintiff's objections to the R&R (Doc. 429) are overruled. 16 2. The R&R (Doc. 406) is adopted. 17 3. Counts 1, 4, 6, and 7 of the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 351) are 18 || dismissed without leave to amend. 19 4. Defendants Demery, Kranick, Maldonado, Ortiz, Parks, Sestiaga, Unknown Centurion VP of Operations, Unknown Corizon Health Agents, Unknown Centurion Health Agents, and NP Weigel are dismissed as defendants in this matter. 22 Dated this 30th day of January, 2026. 23

Dominic W, Lanza 26 United States District Judge 27 28

_3-