an atmosphere of trust speech and breach by the defendants to the patients detriment for no good reason and also this involves speech protected speech privilege from disclosure to the public which was also violated to the patron the patients  breach of contract numerous things in violation of the patient's rights fraud misrepresentation  there's a question of subject matter jurisdiction which the defendants at the time at some of the stages in the case did not give the courts subject managers action to be bring a claim or accusation against the patient pretty much and a summary judgment also is  question in district court that that's questionable other defendants who are competent to submit evidence firsthand knowledge because they had no merit to dismissed the case as the defense had no standing that's pretty much it introduced false testimony or false evidence against him that's squarely on point with this simple repackaging case which also involved a claim of introducing false testimony or false evidence and the court held that there was immunity in that case valid substantive due process claim based on his therapist temporal officer ramirez allegedly discussing with each other is failure to attend therapy sessions his psychiatric diagnosis or his medications in fact remarriages had a valid interest in receiving this information to ensure the plaintiff was complying with the conditions of his parole and that he would not be compensated again a fan thereby violating the conditions of  lower court's decision should be overturned mr males position in this is that she was the social worker who had spoken to the parole officers and explained to them that that they were  mr jackson was missing treatment and and and they had they had threatened her the second circuit has you know and this was a reasonable disclosure considering the conditions of the plant to sprawl which was to see can maintain a therapeutic program it was a pro lifer duties to verify that the plaintiff complied with the issues of his parole their allegations that the mayor and remember of spoke of the alleged threats and failure to ten therapy without more does not permit an inference of a conspiracy under a one thousand nine hundred three conspiracy claim when you know to the fact when de mayo did have to appear at the pro officer revocation hearing she testif subpoena she testified that she didn't want to appear at the hearing and she had to be driven to the hearing so alleging that a private party regularly interacts with a state actor does not create an inference of an agreement to violate the plaintiff's right it's just a naked assertion and very quickly since i see i'm running out of time you know miss de mayo did not violate any privacy rights privacy rights can be limited by conditions of parole hipaa does not create a private cause of action and if the court was to consider miss de mayo state actor only the most egregious official conduct the chocks the conscience will subject her to lie billion that just doesn't exist she was merely you know responding to questions of the pro loftus or who is investigating whether mr jackson had violate the conditions of his parole thank you very much sounding in intentional infliction of emotional distress were time barred therefore this circuit should affirm the decision and order of the district court first time perhaps most significantly the appellant has failed to address defendant miss rockwell in his brief and therefore his silence as to miss rockwell constitutes a waiver of any claims on this appeal under jones versus hastert however if this circuit determines that the opponent has not waive the claim her as a state actor or that she was acting under the color of state law for liability purposes in fact she was an employee of montefiore medical center a domestic not for profit hospital which is neither state or federal governmental branch anything that would shock the conscience of the court sufficient to be actionable as a violation of a substantive due process claim under columns even for this even assuming for the sake of the argument that miss  rockwell disclosed information to mr jackson's parole officer at most miss rockwell acted negligently however mere negligence is never going to rise to the level of substantive due process violation under o'connor  i see that i'm running out of time however i would like to just address one other point which is while mr jackson's medical records would be considered confidential given the fact that they were psychiatric record apparent that mr jackson consented to the release of his medical history and therefore would not have a protected privacy interest here the district court was concerned about the privacy interest and assumed that he did not consent but again even under that analysis if anything mr rockwell acted negligently not not to the level of a subset of due process  violation finally with respect to the claims of conspiracy they're not a political as to miss rockwell because her last contact with mr jackson was on march eighth she had nothing to do with the parole hearing she didn't testify at the parole hearing and therefore there would not be any conspiracy violation towards her therefore this court should affirm the order of the district court thank you and also this involves the first amendment which is clearly established as for absolute muni i would say the fact of the matter is that that court did not have jurisdiction matter and also a demand is clearly established that the hospital was aware that this a threat was made up the medical records don't show any threat no attempt to avert the threat that only the next thing after the alleged threat was a new appointment and during testimony the male specifically said she thought i was getting on parole and another thing with the condition of parole is not connected to any criminal activity i was sentenced to mental health treatment so it's not reasonable so i'm reasonable and the court should support that that's pretty much for now but it is a first amendment violation and i think that the district court did not address the issue that we're talking to our speech is totally ignored it this is a statement and it's protected is no threat doesn't mean any of the requirements for truth but so the speech is protected from state infringement and abuse and also as a as a as a function of state property pretty much at that time i was acting for the state not as punishment with doing something for the state which creates immunity from for me the patient technically so going against me would be going against the state  which is understand we means the parole officers was not acting for the state they were acting against the state's interests which they don't have immunity for that thank you all for your arguments thank you mr jackson we have your briefs and we will consider them carefully we're going to take the matter under advisement the last matter to be argued on the calendar this morning so i asked the clerk to a