Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_23-cv-00802/USCOURTS-azd-2_23-cv-00802-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Eric Jordan,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Ryan Thornell, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-23-00802-PHX-GMS (DMF)

ORDER 

Plaintiff Eric Jordan, who has been and remains confined in an Arizona State Prison 

Complex brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant 

Lieutenant Daniel J. Vance, the La Palma Correctional Center, and the Director of the 

Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry (ADC). Upon screening of 

Plaintiff’s May 2023 Complaint (Doc. 1), the Court ordered that Defendant Vance must 

answer the excessive force claim in Count One in his individual capacity only, and the 

Court dismissed the remaining claims and defendants (Doc. 8). 

On August 30, 2024, Defendant moved for dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim and this 

action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(v) and 41(b). (Doc. 43 at 

1). The motion was served on Plaintiff by mail (Id. at 6). The Court issued an order 

notifying Plaintiff of his obligation to respond to the motion to dismiss and the Court set a 

briefing schedule (Doc. 44). Plaintiff has failed to respond to the pending motion to dismiss 

and the time to do so has expired. Plaintiff has not made any filings since July 2024. 

Case 2:23-cv-00802-GMS-DMF Document 49 Filed 12/17/24 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

The Court will adopt the R&R and grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

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 October 22, 2024 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 

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, Plaintiff 

has failed to respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and has abandoned his case and 

failed to comply with the Court’s orders. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 46) is adopted and the pending 

motion to dismiss (Doc. 43) is granted.

(2) The Clerk of Court is directed to enter Judgment accordingly.

/ / /

Case 2:23-cv-00802-GMS-DMF Document 49 Filed 12/17/24 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

(3) This action is dismissed without prejudice and the Clerk of Court is directed 

to terminate the matter.

Dated this 16th day of December, 2024.

Case 2:23-cv-00802-GMS-DMF Document 49 Filed 12/17/24 Page 3 of 3