Plaintiff-Appellant Donna Arensdorf appeals the district court’s dismissal pursu *635 ant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) of her claims under the Privacy Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(8) and 1986, and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), against numerous Internal Revenue Service and other officials in their individual capacities. 1 Based on our de novo review of the record, see In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007); Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467, 469 (5th Cir. 2002), we conclude that Plaintiff has failed to identify any error in the district court’s ruling. Indeed, her brief wholly fails to address the court’s reasoned basis for dismissal, which we find fully supported by the governing law. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.