Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05012/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05012-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

On August 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(Doc. 1), as well as a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). In Count 

One, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants Scott and Alvarez burdened the exercise of his 

religion by refusing to provide him with a kosher diet. In Count Two, Plaintiff alleged he 

was fired from his job as a cook when the Defendants learned of his intention to file a 

lawsuit. In this Court’s October 24, 2019 Order (Doc. 6), the Court ordered Defendants 

Scott and Alvarez to answer Count One of the Complaint and dismissed the remaining 

claim and Defendants without prejudice.

On March 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Request for Leave to File a First Amended 

Complaint (Doc. 16). On April 16, 2020, the Honorable Camille D. Bibles, United States 

Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 19), 

recommending that the Court grant the motion insofar as it seeks to add a RLUIPA claim 

for prospective injunctive relief against Defendant Shinn acting in his official capacity. 

The R&R further recommends that the motion be denied in all other respects. Judge Bibles

Marcus David Russell,

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-19-05012-SPL (CDB)

ORDER

Case 2:19-cv-05012-SPL-CDB Document 31 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 2
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

advised the parties that they had fourteen (14) days to file objections to the R&R and that 

failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review 

of the R&R. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

No timely objection has been filed, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 

review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 

(1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is 

not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken.

The Court will thus adopt the R&R in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the 

district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge 

may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or 

return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 

19) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request for Leave to File a First 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 16) is granted insofar as Plaintiff seeks to add a RLUIPA claim 

for prospective injunctive relief against Defendant Shinn acting in his official capacity. 

The motion is denied in all other respects.

Dated this 26th day of May, 2020.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:19-cv-05012-SPL-CDB Document 31 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 2