Opinion
Case No.: 1:16-cv-01077-AWI-SAB (PC)
02-02-2018
RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, Plaintiff, v. E. KVICHKO, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF [Doc. No. 4]
Plaintiff Raymond Alford Bradford is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This 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 28, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff's complaint and found that it stated a cognizable claim deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Kvichko. (Doc. No. 4.) The magistrate judge further recommended dismissing Plaintiff's claim for a violation of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, with prejudice, for the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Id.) Those findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 7.) On January 8, 2018, Plaintiff timely filed objections. (Doc. No. 6.) Plaintiff objects to the findings and recommendations on the grounds that he has stated a due process violation against Defendant Kvichko based on false testimony that denied him a fair hearing. (Doc. No. 6.) The magistrate judge addressed that question and correctly concluded that, as testifying witness, Defendant Kvichko is absolutely immune with respect to that claim. See Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 367, 132 S. Ct. 1497, 1505, 182 L. Ed. 2d 593 (2012); Lisker v. City of Los Angeles, 780 F.3d 1237, 1242 (9th Cir. 2015).
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff's objections, the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations dated December 28, 2017, and filed on December 29, 2017, (Doc. No. 4) are adopted in full;IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 2, 2018
2. Plaintiff's claim for a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation is dismissed, with prejudice, for the failure to state a claim; and
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.
/s/_________
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE