Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00990/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00990-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

I. VELLA-LOPEZ, et al.,

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)

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

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 25, 2011. This 

action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed January 31, 2014, against 

Defendants Brooks, Yu, and Peppercorn for violating Plaintiff’s right to adequate medical care 

under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

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

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 9, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings 

and Recommendations recommending that Defendant Robert Peppercorn’s motion for summary 

judgment be granted. Plaintiff filed an Objection on December 17, 2014, and Defendant

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

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

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

Case 1:11-cv-00990-AWI-SKO Document 88 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 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

2

Defendant Robert Peppercorn submitted evidence demonstrating that he is a dermatologist 

practicing in Yuba City, California; he never treated Plaintiff; he never treated the condition at 

issue in this case (ulcerative colitis and celiac disease); he never worked for the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at any of its prisons or consulted at any of its 

prisons; and he does not know Defendant Brooks, the dietician who allegedly caused “Dr. 

Peppercorn” to deny his special diet. In determining that Plaintiff failed (1) to identify any 

legitimate legal basis for continuing the motion pending further discovery and (2) to submit any 

evidence raising a triable issue of fact, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the second amended 

complaint and the evidence upon which Plaintiff relied to identify a “Dr. Peppercorn” as a 

defendant. The Magistrate Judge explained clearly why the evidence not only failed to support 

Plaintiff’s position that Dr. Robert Peppercorn was involved with his medical care at California 

State Prison-Corcoran but failed to support his position that there was a Dr. Peppercorn involved 

in his prison medical care.

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

neither demonstrated entitlement to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) nor 

produced evidence demonstrating the existence of any triable issues of fact. Accordingly, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

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

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

2014, are DENIED; and

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

GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00990-AWI-SKO Document 88 Filed 01/12/15 Page 2 of 2