(PC)Elliott v. Lynch

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 CHRISTOPHER ELLIOTT, No. 2:22-cv-01323 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JEFF LYNCH, et al., 15 Defendants. — 16 — 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 17, 2023, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 21. No party has 23 filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 25 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See 26 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 27 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 ///// 1 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 The court finds this action is related with Elliott v. Campose, case no. 2:22-cv-1236-DMC. 4 See E.D. Cal. L.R. 123(a). The parties should be aware that relating cases under Local Rule 123 5 causes the actions to be assigned to the same judge – it does not consolidate the actions. Under 6 Local Rule 123, related cases are generally assigned to the judge and magistrate judge to whom 7 the first filed action was assigned. Here, the magistrate judge presiding over Elliott v. Campose, 8 no. 2:22-cv-1236-DMC, is the one assigned with the lower numbered case. However, the parties 9 in case no. 22-cv-1236-DMC have consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge, so no 10 district judge is assigned to that case. Accordingly, the court reassigns the magistrate judge in 11 this action from Magistrate Judge Allison Claire to Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. The findings and recommendations issued April 17, 2023 (ECF No. 21), are 14 ADOPTED in full; 15 2. This action is RELATED to Elliott v. Campose, No. 22-cv-1236 DMC, under Local 16 Rule 123(a)(1)-(3); 17 3. This action is REASSIGNED from Magistrate Judge Allison Claire to Magistrate 18 Judge Dennis M. Cota. Henceforth, the caption on documents filed in the reassigned case shall be 19 shown as: No. 2:22-cv-01323-KJM-DMC; 20 4. The court acknowledges there is a settlement conference set before Magistrate Judge 21 Newman on July 18, 2023, Minute Order, ECF No. 22, and an order and writ of habeas corpus ad 22 testificandum, Writ, ECF No. 23. The settlement conference is maintained on the calendar, with 23 any case management issues related to the settlement conference referred to Magistrate Judge 24 Cota; and 25 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to make appropriate adjustment in the assignment of 26 civil cases to compensate for this reassignment. 27 DATED: June 22, 2023. — 28 —