Josh Thomas v. D. A. Carrasco;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28**
U.S.C. § 636(c).
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision***
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSH THOMAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
D. A. CARRASCO; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-17480
D.C. No. 1:04-cv-05793-MJS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Michael J. Seng, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted July 17, 2012***
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Josh Thomas appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated
FILED
JUL 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-17480 2
his constitutional rights when they accessed his medical records. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo and may affirm on any
ground supported by the record. Vestar Dev. II, LLC v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 249
F.3d 958, 960 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
Dismissal of the action was proper because Thomas failed to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. See Seaton v. Mayberg, 610 F.3d 530, 538 (9th
Cir. 2010) (explaining that a proper governmental interest may overcome a
conditional right to medical privacy); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106-07
(9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal without leave to amend is not an abuse of discretion
where amendment would be futile).
Thomas’s remaining contentions, including those concerning alleged judicial
misconduct and his claims under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, are
unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --