Case Name: Dorothy CALABRESE, M.D.; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Kathleen SEBELIUS, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Secretary, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-27
Citations: 446 F. App'x 33
Docket Number: No. 10-56346
Parties: Dorothy CALABRESE, M.D.; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Kathleen SEBELIUS, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Secretary, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 446
Pages: 33–34

Head Matter:
Dorothy CALABRESE, M.D.; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Kathleen SEBELIUS, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Secretary, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-56346.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 27, 2011.
Allergy & Immunology, San Clemente, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Dorothy Calabrese, M.D., pro se.
Russell William Chittenden, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Kathleen Sebelius is substituted for her predecessor, Charles E. Johnson, as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, plaintiffs’ request for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Dorothy Calabrese, M.D., and her patients Harriet Fahl, Gene Fahl, and Paul Messer, appeal pro se from the district court's order dismissing their action alleging equal protection violations based on defendant's denial of Medicare reimbursements for "transfer factor" therapy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Uhm v. Humana, Inc., 620 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because plaintiffs failed to state an equal protection claim. See Engquist v. Or. Dep't of Agric., 553 U.S. 591, 601-03, 128 S.Ct. 2146, 170 L.Ed.2d 975 (2008) (addressing "class of one" equal protection claim); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 769-70, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975) (addressing class-based equal protection claim).
Plaintiffs' remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.