Opinion
2:22-cv-01096-KJM-JDP (PC)
03-22-2023
MILLARD WAYNE BAKER, Jr., Plaintiff, v. SOLORANO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On December 22, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the claims against defendants to be related. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 permits joinder of defendants in one action if “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2)(B). Here, questions of fact regarding the seriousness of plaintiff's alleged injury are common to claims against the correctional officers and Doe defendant 7, see First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 11, so plaintiff may bring both claims in this action.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The court declines to adopt the recommended dismissal of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against doe defendant 7.
2. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further pretrial proceedings consistent with this order.