Briggs v. Legacy Salmon Creek Medical Center

W.D. Washington

Briggs v. Legacy Salmon Creek Medical Center

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided February 10, 2025·No. 3:25-cv-05053·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT TACOMA CHRISTOPHER BRIGGS, CASE NO. C25-5053 BHS Plaintiff, ORDER v. MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Grady J. Leopold’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 4, recommending the Court deny pro se plaintiff Christopher Briggs’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss this case with prejudice and without leave to amend. Briggs seeks to sue defendant Legacy Salmon Creek for violating his Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) rights by sharing his medical information, which it does under its Notice of Privacy Practices (NPP). Dkt. 1-1 at 7–8. Briggs claims Legacy refused to honor his “opt out request.” Dkt. 1. The R&R concludes that there is no HIPAA private right of action, and that Briggs’s sole claim is fatally flawed. Dkt. 4 at 3 (citing Garmon v. County of Los

Angeles, 828 F.3d 837, 847 (9th Cir. 2016) (“HIPAA itself provides no private right of action.”)). A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed finding or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). It must modify or set aside any portion of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The

district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court must “review the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing § 636(b)(1)(C)). A proper objection requires “specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Briggs has not objected to the R&R, and it is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. It is ADOPTED. Briggs’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is

DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend. The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case. // Dated this 10th day of February, 2025. A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT TACOMA CHRISTOPHER BRIGGS, CASE NO. C25-5053 BHS Plaintiff, ORDER v. MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Grady J. Leopold’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 4, recommending the Court deny pro se plaintiff Christopher Briggs’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss this case with prejudice and without leave to amend. Briggs seeks to sue defendant Legacy Salmon Creek for violating his Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) rights by sharing his medical information, which it does under its Notice of Privacy Practices (NPP). Dkt. 1-1 at 7–8. Briggs claims Legacy refused to honor his “opt out request.” Dkt. 1. The R&R concludes that there is no HIPAA private right of action, and that Briggs’s sole claim is fatally flawed. Dkt. 4 at 3 (citing Garmon v. County of Los

Angeles, 828 F.3d 837, 847 (9th Cir. 2016) (“HIPAA itself provides no private right of action.”)). A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed finding or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). It must modify or set aside any portion of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The

district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court must “review the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing § 636(b)(1)(C)). A proper objection requires “specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Briggs has not objected to the R&R, and it is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. It is ADOPTED. Briggs’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is

DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend. The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case. // Dated this 10th day of February, 2025. A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge

Briggs v. Legacy Salmon Creek Medical Center, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Briggs v. Legacy Salmon Creek Medical Center (Briggs v. Legacy Salmon Creek Medical Center) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related