Lawrence Miles v. Carol Pearson , 532 F. App'x 676 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAWRENCE WADE MILES, No. 11-16086
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:09-cv-00724-FRZ
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CAROL B. PEARSON; RENAE
WHITAKER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2013 **
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Lawrence Wade Miles appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants
violated his constitutional right to privacy by disclosing his confidential medical
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
records to a third party without his authorization. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Brown v. City of Los Angeles, 521 F.3d 1238,
1240 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We may affirm on any ground supported by the
record. Van Asdale v. Int’l Game Tech., 577 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2009). We
affirm.
Summary judgment was proper because Miles failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether either of the named defendants ordered the
release of medical records outside the scope of Miles’s authorization. See Cafasso,
U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th Cir. 2011)
(“To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must set forth non-speculative
evidence of specific facts, not sweeping conclusory allegations.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants’
unopposed motion to stay discovery pending the outcome of the summary
judgment motion. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)
(providing standard of review for district court’s discovery rulings, and explaining
that the district court’s discretion to deny discovery “will not be disturbed except
upon the clearest showing that denial of discovery results in actual and substantial
prejudice” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
2 11-16086
Miles’s remaining contentions regarding the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Arizona Revised
Statutes sections 31-127 & 128 are unpersuasive.
Miles’s opposed motion for leave to file a supplemental brief is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 11-16086