Anderson v. Cocciardi

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Kelvin Damarilamor Anderson, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Unknown Cocciardi,
Defendant.
No. CV 25-02612 PHX ROS (CDB)
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
TO THE HONORABLE ROSLYN O. SILVER:
On April 10, 2026, the Court allowed Plaintiff until May 10, 2026, to file an
amended complaint only to add Fieslman and Evans as defendants with regard to Count
One, the only count of the Complaint on which Plaintiff has been given leave to proceed.
(ECF No. 44). In the Order at ECF No. 44 the Court adopted the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 24), and denied Plaintiff leave to proceed on Count Two of
his proposed amended complaint. (Id.). The Court further denied Plaintiff leave to
proceed on a third count in his proposed amended complaint, stating a claim against
Correctional Health Services. (Id.).
On April 30, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the Complaint, and lodged a
proposed amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 47 & 48). In the proposed amended complaint
Plaintiff restates Count One of the Complaint, adding claims against Fieslman and Evans
as Defendants. (ECF No. 48). Plaintiff also restates Count Two of the Complaint, on
which Plaintiff was previously denied leave to proceed. Plaintiff also states Count Three
of the Complaint, on which Plaintiff was previously denied leave to proceed. Defendant
Case 2:25-cv-02612-ROS-CDB Document 51 Filed 05/26/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Cocciardi has provided a cogent response to the motion to amend. (ECF No. 50), and that
reasoning should be adopted by the Court.
Accordingly,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion at ECF No. 47 be denied to the
extent Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed on Counts Two and Three of the lodged
amended complaint at ECF No. 48.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court order that the lodged
proposed amended complaint be docketed as Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and that
the Court dismiss Counts Two and Three of the Amended Complaint without leave
to amend.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court order service on
Defendants Fieslman and Evans by the United States Marshal and order Defendants
Fieslman and Evans to answer Count One of the Amended Complaint.
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s
judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this
recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(2). Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days
within which to file a response to the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2(e)(3), Local Rules
of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona,
objections to the Report and Recommendation may not exceed ten (10) pages in length.
Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the
District Court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations of the
Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the
Case 2:25-cv-02612-ROS-CDB Document 51 Filed 05/26/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
Dated this 22nd day of May, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-02612-ROS-CDB Document 51 Filed 05/26/26 Page 3 of 3