Bradford v. Vella-Lopez et al

Filing 88

ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 80 , Denying Plaintiff's Rule 56(D) Motions 52 , 61 , and Granting Defendant Peppercorn's Motion for Summary Judgment 46 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/8/15. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

I. VELLA-LOPEZ, et al.,

14

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:11-cv-00990-AWI-SKO (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S RULE 56(D) MOTIONS, AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT PEPPERCORN’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Docs. 46, 52, 61, and 80)

15
16

Plaintiff Raymond Alford Bradford (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

17 forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 25, 2011. This
18 action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed January 31, 2014, against
19 Defendants Brooks, Yu, and Peppercorn for violating Plaintiff’s right to adequate medical care
20 under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
21

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

22 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 9, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings
23 and Recommendations recommending that Defendant Robert Peppercorn’s motion for summary
24 judgment be granted.

Plaintiff filed an Objection on December 17, 2014, and Defendant

25 Peppercorn filed a response on December 30, 2014. Local Rule 304(b), (d).
26

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a

27 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings
28 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

1

Defendant Robert Peppercorn submitted evidence demonstrating that he is a dermatologist

2 practicing in Yuba City, California; he never treated Plaintiff; he never treated the condition at
3 issue in this case (ulcerative colitis and celiac disease); he never worked for the California
4 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at any of its prisons or consulted at any of its
5 prisons; and he does not know Defendant Brooks, the dietician who allegedly caused “Dr.
6 Peppercorn” to deny his special diet. In determining that Plaintiff failed (1) to identify any
7 legitimate legal basis for continuing the motion pending further discovery and (2) to submit any
8 evidence raising a triable issue of fact, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the second amended
9 complaint and the evidence upon which Plaintiff relied to identify a “Dr. Peppercorn” as a
10 defendant. The Magistrate Judge explained clearly why the evidence not only failed to support
11 Plaintiff’s position that Dr. Robert Peppercorn was involved with his medical care at California
12 State Prison-Corcoran but failed to support his position that there was a Dr. Peppercorn involved
13 in his prison medical care.
14

Plaintiff’s objections to the Findings and Recommendations lack merit.

Plaintiff has

15 neither demonstrated entitlement to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) nor
16 produced evidence demonstrating the existence of any triable issues of fact. Accordingly, IT IS
17 HEREBY ORDERED that:
18

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed on December 9, 2014, is adopted in full;

19

2.

Plaintiff’s motions to continue Defendant Peppercorn’s motion for summary

20

judgment pending completion of discovery, filed on May 5, 2014, and on May 27,

21

2014, are DENIED; and

22
23

3.

Defendant Peppercorn’s motion for summary judgment, filed on April 24, 2014, is
GRANTED.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 Dated: January 8, 2015

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2