Roderick v. Joel 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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Joseph Roderick, Jr,
Plaintiff,
v.
William Martin Joel, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-26-00594-PHX-CDB
ORDER
This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles. (Doc. 11). On July
13, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1 (Doc.
44). To date, no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge recommends that this
matter be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because
Plaintiff’s claims for relief are time-barred and Plaintiff has been given numerous
opportunities to plead facts establishing that he is entitled to tolling of the statute of
1 	This case is assigned to a Magistrate Judge. However, not all parties have consented
to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. Thus, the matter is before this Court pursuant
to General Order 21-25, which states in relevant part:
When a United States Magistrate Judge to whom a civil action has been
assigned 	pursuant 	to 	Local 	Rule 	3.7(a)(1) 	considers 	dismissal 	to 	be
appropriate but lacks the jurisdiction to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1)
due to incomplete status of election by the parties to consent or not consent
to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge,
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge will prepare a Report and
Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating the following District Court
Judges to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the order of dismissal on
my behalf:
Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M. McNamee
Case 2:26-cv-00594-SMM-CDB Document 47 Filed 08/07/26 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
limitations and has failed to do so. (Id.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v.
Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the service
of a copy of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific written
objections to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to object to a
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of
the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and waives all objections to those findings on
appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a
Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of
finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id.
DISCUSSION
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no
Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and
adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to
state cognizable claims, therefore, the Court dismisses this action under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Further,
dismissal with prejudice is appropriate, here, because “the plaintiff has previously been
granted leave to amend” and has subsequently failed to cure deficiencies existing in prior
iterations of his complaint. See Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981,
1007 (9th Cir. 2009), as amended (Feb. 10, 2009).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth,
IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge. (Doc. 44).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Sixth
Amended Complaint. (Doc. 42).
Case 2:26-cv-00594-SMM-CDB Document 47 Filed 08/07/26 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
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s operative amended complaint
with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (Doc. 6).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s prior motions to proceed on an
amended complaint, motion to allow electronic filing, motion for a status report, and
motion to accept a notice of errata as moot. (Docs. 14; 15; 20; 21; 24; 32; 34).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing this action with prejudice pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment
accordingly and terminate this case.
Dated this 7th day of August, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-00594-SMM-CDB Document 47 Filed 08/07/26 Page 3 of 3