From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Calabrese v. Sebelius

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 27, 2011
446 F. App'x 33 (9th Cir. 2011)

Opinion

No. 10-56346.

Submitted July 12, 2011.

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.

July 27, 2011.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 8:09-cv-00383-CJC-RNB.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM

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


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 (2008) (addressing "class of one" equal protection claim); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 769-70 (1975) (addressing class-based equal protection claim).

Plaintiffs' remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Calabrese v. Sebelius

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 27, 2011
446 F. App'x 33 (9th Cir. 2011)
Case details for

Calabrese v. Sebelius

Case Details

Full title:DOROTHY CALABRESE, M.D.; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KATHLEEN…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jul 27, 2011

Citations

446 F. App'x 33 (9th Cir. 2011)