Dee Towles v. James Dzurenda ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEE V. TOWLES, No. 18-15253
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00109-MMD-
WGC
v.
JAMES DZURENDA, NDOC Director; et MEMORANDUM*
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Dee V. Towles appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) and verbal harassment.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wilhelm v.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Towles’s claim alleging HIPAA
violations because there is no private right of action under the statute. See Seaton
v. Mayberg, 610 F.3d 530, 533 (9th Cir. 2010) (“HIPAA . . . provides no private
right of action.” (citation omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed Towles’s claim based on alleged verbal
abuse by prison personnel because “verbal harassment generally does not violate
the Eighth Amendment.” Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996),
amended on denial of reh’g by 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998).
We do not consider materials that were not before the district court. See
Lowry v. Barnhart, 329 F.3d 1019, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2003) (a party generally may
not add to or enlarge the record on appeal to include material that was not before
the district court).
We do not consider matters not raised before the district court, or matters not
specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v.
Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 18-15253