(PC) Bradford v. Kvichko, No. 1:2016cv01077 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING Certain Claims for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim for Relief, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 02/02/20018. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 v. E. KVICHKO, Defendant. 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:16-cv-01077-AWI-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF [Doc. No. 4] 18 Plaintiff Raymond Alford Bradford is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 19 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 20 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On December 28, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found 22 that it stated a cognizable claim deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the 23 Eighth Amendment against Defendant Kvichko. 24 recommended dismissing Plaintiff’s claim for a violation of his due process rights under the 25 Fourteenth Amendment, with prejudice, for the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 26 granted. (Id.) Those findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that 27 any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 7.) On January 28 8, 2018, Plaintiff timely filed objections. (Doc. No. 4.) The magistrate judge further (Doc. No. 6.) Plaintiff objects to the findings and 1 1 recommendations on the grounds that he has stated a due process violation against Defendant Kvichko 2 based on false testimony that denied him a fair hearing. (Doc. No. 6.) The magistrate judge addressed 3 that question and correctly concluded that, as testifying witness, Defendant Kvichko is absolutely 4 immune with respect to that claim. See Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 367, 132 S. Ct. 1497, 1505, 5 182 L. Ed. 2d 593 (2012); Lisker v. City of Los Angeles, 780 F.3d 1237, 1242 (9th Cir. 2015). 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de 7 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections, the 8 Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 9 analysis. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. 29, 2017, (Doc. No. 4) are adopted in full; 12 13 2. 16 Plaintiff’s claim for a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation is dismissed, with prejudice, for the failure to state a claim; and 14 15 The findings and recommendations dated December 28, 2017, and filed on December 3. This case shall proceed on Plaintiff’s claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Kvichko. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: February 2, 2018 20 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.