Case Name: Juan BARELA; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ellis W. JOHNSON, MD; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-23
Citations: 235 F. App'x 470
Docket Number: No. 06-35997
Parties: Juan BARELA; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Ellis W. JOHNSON, MD; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 470–470

Head Matter:
Juan BARELA; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Ellis W. JOHNSON, MD; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 06-35997.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 9, 2007.
Filed July 23, 2007.
Juan Barela, Woodland, WA, pro se.
Lynn Barela, Woodland, WA, pro se.
Rebecca S. Ringer, Esq., Matthew W. Pierce, Esq., Meredith J. Hillman, Esq., Kingman Peabody Fitzharris & Ringer, PS, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Juan Barela and Lynn Barela appeal pro se the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants-appellants Ellis Johnson and Lori Johnson. We review de novo, see Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir.2007), and affirm.
Under Washington law, doctors who have reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect are required to report the incident to the proper law enforcement agency. Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.030(1). The reporting doctor is "immune from any liability arising out of such reporting" when it is done in good faith. Id. § 26.44.060(l)(a). The Barelas failed to provide evidence creating a genuine issue as to Dr. Johnson's good faith in reporting the suspected child abuse. Summary judgment was appropriate.
The Barelas' remaining contentions lack merit.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.