Case Name: Josh THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.A. CARRASCO; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-24
Citations: 474 F. App'x 692
Docket Number: No. 10-17480
Parties: Josh THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.A. CARRASCO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 692–692

Head Matter:
Josh THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.A. CARRASCO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-17480.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2012.
Filed July 24, 2012.
Josh Thomas, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
Jose Zelidon-Zepeda, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
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 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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.