Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00844/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00844-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1402 Medical Malpractice

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Bradley Medina and Svetlana Krivencheva initiated this action in which they allege claims for 

medical negligence, lack of informed consent, and loss of consortium pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2671, et 

seq. (Federal Tort Claims Act) against the United States of America and Courtney Mapes, M.D.1 

(Doc. 1.) 

Plaintiffs, now proceeding pro se, filed separate applications to proceed in forma pauperis on 

June 14, 2023.2 (Docs. 47, 48.) The assigned magistrate judge observed the filing fee was previously

paid in this action and found that “Plaintiffs can afford remaining court costs in this case.” (Doc. 51 at 

2-3.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the motions be denied. (Id. at 3.) The Court 

served the Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties, and it notified them that any 

1 Plaintiffs’ claims against the Government were dismissed pursuant to a stipulation on November 11, 2021. (Doc. 14.)

2 Plaintiffs had previously filed a single application (Doc. 45), which the assigned magistrate denied without prejudice as to 

each Plaintiff filing separate and complete long-form applications (Doc. 46).

BRADLEY MEDINA, et al.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COURTNEY MAPES, M.D.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:21-cv-0844 JLT EPG

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docs. 47, 48 and 51)

Case 1:21-cv-00844-JLT-EPG Document 60 Filed 08/21/23 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

objections were due within 14 days of the date of service. (Id. at 3.) In addition, the Court advised the 

Plaintiffs “that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on 

appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014), Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) No objections were filed, and the time to do so has passed.

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court conducted a de novo

review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the Findings and 

Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on June 28, 2023 (Doc. 51) are ADOPTED 

in full.

2. Plaintiffs’ motions to proceed without the prepayment of fees and costs (Docs. 47, 48) 

are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2023 

Case 1:21-cv-00844-JLT-EPG Document 60 Filed 08/21/23 Page 2 of 2