UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2019
DENEEN HARRIS; JESSIE HARVEY; JOSEPH BRADLEY; STEVEN HYDE;
LINDA REID; JANAKIBAI THEOGARAJ; FRED TYRRELL; BARBARA
WILLIAMS; LINDA TYREE,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:10-cv-00027-REP)
Submitted: March 1, 2011 Decided: March 17, 2011
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen Domenic Scavuzzo, McLean, Virginia, for Appellants.
Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Robin Perrin Meier,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Deneen Harris, Jessie Harvey, Joseph Bradley, Steven
Hyde, Linda Reid, Janakibai Theogaraj, Linda Tyree,
Fred Tyrrell, and Barbara Williams (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
filed suit against the United States pursuant to the Federal
Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680 (2006).
Plaintiffs are all present and former employees of Hunter Holmes
McGuire Veterans Affairs Medical Center (“VAMC”) in Richmond,
Virginia. As a basis for the FTCA claim, the complaint relied
on federal and state constitutional law, federal statutory and
regulatory law, and a provision of the Virginia Health Records
Privacy Act (“VHRPA”), Va. Code Ann. § 32.1-127.1:03 (2010).
The Government filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and
after a hearing, a magistrate judge recommended granting the
Government’s motion. The district court adopted the
recommendation over Plaintiffs’ objections, and Plaintiffs noted
a timely appeal. We affirm.
On appeal, Plaintiffs’ arguments all address whether
the district court erred in holding the VHRPA does not create a
private cause of action. They argue that the district judge
erred in dismissing their claim on the grounds that they alleged
a “seizure” and not a “disclosure.”
This Court reviews a district court’s Rule 12(b)(1),
(6) dismissal de novo. Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem’l Hosp.,
2
572 F.3d 176, 179-80 (4th Cir. 2009); Etape v. Chertoff,
497 F.3d 379, 382 (4th Cir. 2007). A district court should
dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) if it fails to allege facts upon which
subject matter jurisdiction can be based or if the
jurisdictional allegations in the complaint are not true.
Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187, 192 (4th Cir. 2009). A
district court should dismiss a complaint pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) if, accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the
complaint as true and drawing all reasonable factual inferences
in the plaintiff’s favor, the complaint does not allege “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Because Plaintiffs brought this action under the FTCA,
their claims are governed by the law of Virginia, the state
where the alleged tortious government conduct occurred. See
28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) (2006). The United States is only liable
under circumstances where a private person would be liable to
the claimant. Id.
Assuming, without deciding, that the VHRPA does
provide a private right of action, we conclude that the district
court properly dismissed the complaint. The statute prohibits
disclosure of an individual’s health records, “except when
permitted or required by this section or by other provisions of
3
state law.” Va. Code Ann. § 32.1-127.1:03(A). The facts
alleged in the complaint state only that agents from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General (“VA
OIG”) seized records “without a warrant, without probable cause,
[and] without written authorization,” not that the records were
disclosed to any third party.
Furthermore, even if VA OIG’s actions constitute a
disclosure, disclosure to law enforcement officials is permitted
“if the health care entity believes in good faith that the
information disclosed constitutes evidence of a crime.” Va.
Code Ann. § 32.1-127.1:03(D)(31). We conclude that Plaintiffs’
bare allegation that the VA OIG did not act in good faith is
insufficient to circumvent this statutory exception. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); Bell Atl.
Corp., 550 U.S. at 555. Federal law grants inspectors general
broad authority “to have access to all records, reports, audits,
reviews, documents, papers, recommendations, or other material
available to the applicable establishment which relate to
programs and operations with respect to which that Inspector
General has responsibilities.” 5 U.S.C. app. § 6(a)(1) (2006).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
4
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5