Calvin v. Phoenix Police Department et al

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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Edward Dion Calvin,
Plaintiff,
v.
Phoenix Police Department, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-24-01784-PHX-GMS (DMF)
ORDER
Plaintiff Edward Dion Calvin, who was previously confined in the Maricopa County
Jail, brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Phoenix
Police Department and Phoenix Police Officer Michael Paulson. (Doc. 9). Before the
Court is Defendant Paulson’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19) and the Report and
Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine recommending the Court
grant Defendant Paulson’s Motion to Dismiss without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure
to prosecute and failure to notify the Court of his change of address. (Doc. 22).
The Court will adopt the R&R and grant Defendant Paulson’s Motion to Dismiss.
I. Background
In Plaintiff’s one-count Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues the City of
Phoenix and Phoenix Police Officer Michael Paulson for money damages. Plaintiff alleges
Defendant Paulson violated his Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive physical
force on him during arrest. Plaintiff alleged Defendant City of Phoenix failed to train its
officers on “when to properly use deadly force.”
Case 2:24-cv-01784-GMS Document 24 Filed 04/09/26 Page 1 of 4

- 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
The Court’s May 23, 2025 screening order (Doc. 10) dismissed Defendant City of
Phoenix for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim against it and Defendant Paulson was
required to answer the Second Amended Complaint.
II. Procedural History and Posture
The Court’s May 23, 2025 screening order directed and warned that “Plaintiff must
file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule 83.3(d) of the Local
Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other relief with a notice
of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this action” (Id. at 4).
Additionally, the Court warned that “[i]f Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every
provision of this Order, including these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without
further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district
court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the Court)” (Id. at 5).
On August 6, 2025, Defendant Paulson filed an Answer to the Second Amended
Complaint’s excessive force claim against him through his counsel of record at the Phoenix
City Attorney’s Office (Doc. 13). On August 7, 2025, the Court issued a Scheduling and
Discovery Order (Doc. 14). On December 15, 2025, Defendant Paulson filed a motion for
leave to depose Plaintiff (Doc. 15), which the Court granted the same day (Doc. 16), noting
that the Court previously authorized Plaintiff’s deposition (Id. at 1; see Doc. 14 at 3).
Defendant Paulson then promptly noticed Plaintiff’s deposition, sending a copy to Plaintiff
at his address of record (Doc. 17).
The Order granting leave to depose Plaintiff (Doc. 16) was mailed to Plaintiff at his
address of record on the day of its filing but was returned to the Court as undeliverable a
few weeks later (Doc. 18).
On January 26, 2026, Defendant Paulson filed the pending Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
19) for Plaintiff’s failure to appear at a deposition and to comply with this Court’s Order
(Doc. 10), for not maintaining up to date contact information.
On the same day that Defendant Paulson filed the pending motion to dismiss, the
Court issued an Order warning about the need for Plaintiff to timely and properly respond
Case 2:24-cv-01784-GMS Document 24 Filed 04/09/26 Page 2 of 4

- 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
to the motion to dismiss (Doc. 20). The Order was mailed to Plaintiff at his address of
record on the day of its filing but was returned to the Court as undeliverable (Doc. 21); the
returned envelope stated that Plaintiff was no longer in custody (Id.). Pursuant to General
Order 14-10, the Clerk of Court then discontinued mailing until a new address for Plaintiff
is received. 1
Plaintiff has not filed any change of address. Indeed, Plaintiff has not filed anything
with the Court since he returned the service packet for Defendant Paulson in June 2025.
II. Report and Recommendation
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that
the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de
novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d
1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); accord Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,
1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[f]ollowing Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review
of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not
otherwise’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d
1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the
[magistrate judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object”). District courts are not
required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of
an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made”).
Neither party filed objections to the Court’s March 17, 2026 R&R. The Court is
therefore not obligated to review the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d
1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“[t]he district judge must
1 Plaintiff cannot be located through the publicly available Arizona Department of
Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry Inmate Locator. See
https://corrections.az.gov/inmate-data-search (last accessed 3/16/2026).
Case 2:24-cv-01784-GMS Document 24 Filed 04/09/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
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
determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly
objected to”).
Even so, the Court has reviewed Judge Fine’s R&R. As set forth above, since
December 2025, numerous documents mailed from the Court to Plaintiff have been
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
has abandoned his case. (Id. at 7).
The Court therefore accepts and adopts the R&R. Defendant Paulson’s Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 19) will be granted and this action will be dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is adopted.
(2) Defendant Paulson’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19) is granted.
(3) The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action.
Dated this 9th day of April, 2026.
Case 2:24-cv-01784-GMS Document 24 Filed 04/09/26 Page 4 of 4