MEMORANDUM ***

Dorothy Calabrese, M.D., appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her action alleging equal protection violations based on defendant’s denial of Medicare reimbursements for patients with chemical sensitivity. 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 Calabrese failed to state an equal protection claim. See Engquist v. Or. Dep’t of Agric., 553 U.S. 591, 601-03, 128 S.Ct. 2146, 170 L.Ed.2d 975 (2008) (addressing “class of one” equal protection claim); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 769-70, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975) (addressing class-based equal protection claim).

Calabrese’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.