CLERK'S OFFICE U.S. DIST. COU: AT ROANOKE, VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT May 30, 2025 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 80STN CLERK ROANOKE DIVISION St Beeson □□ LAWRENCE T. BAZEMORE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 7:25CV00188 ) V. ) OPINION ) VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORR., _ ) JUDGE JAMES P. JONES ) Defendant. ) ) Lawrence T. Bazemore, Pro Se Plaintiff. The plaintiff, an unrepresented Virginia inmate, filed a civil rights complaint, pursuant to

, alleging that a prison nurse violated his rights under a federal statute about privacy in one’s medical records. After review of the record, I conclude that the case must be summarily dismissed for failure to state a claim actionable under § 1983. Bazemore’s claim is based on an undated incident at Red Onion State Prison. He alleges that “The nurse yelled out loud that I was missing my H.I.V. meds to the floor officer for a unit of over 22 other inmates [in] violation of my HIPPA rights.” Compl. 2, ECF No. 1. He reports that after an investigation, prison officials “upheld” his grievance about the incident, “based off the facts.” Jd. As relief, he seeks monetary compensation from the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC).

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1), the court may dismiss a prisoner’s civil action concerning prison conditions “if the court is satisfied that the action is frivolous,

malicious, [or] fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” A viable complaint must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Giarratano v. Johnson,

(4th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).

To state a cause of action under §1983, a plaintiff must establish that he has been deprived of rights guaranteed by the Constitution or laws of the United States and that this deprivation resulted from conduct committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins,

(1988).

Bazemore is apparently raising his claim under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA). HIPAA provides that “[a] person who knowingly . . . discloses individually identifiable health information to another

person” without authorization shall be fined, imprisoned, or both. 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-6(a)(3), (b). Even if the unnamed nurse in this case violated this provision, a plaintiff seeking a remedy under § 1983 “must assert the violation of a federal right, not merely a violation of federal law.” Planned Parenthood S. Atl. v. Baker,

, 696 (4th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). Thus, for Bazemore to recover under HIPAA, the statute must create a private right to sue that may be enforced under § 1983. It is well established that HIPAA created no private right of action.

Payne v. Taslimi,

, 660 (4th Cir. 2021). With no private right of action to assert under HIPAA, Bazemore has no legal basis on which to sue under § 1983 about an alleged violation of that statute. Id.

Furthermore, the only defendant Bazemore identifies is the VDOC itself. Because the VDOC is properly considered an arm of the Commonwealth of Virginia, it cannot be sued under § 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police,

(1989). For the stated reasons, Bazemore has failed to provide any legal basis for his claims under HIPAA or § 1983. Therefore, I will summarily dismiss the case, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1), for failure to state a claim.

Judgment will issue herewith. DATED: May 30, 2025 /s/ JAMES P. JONES Senior United States District Judge