Boldt

MEMORANDUM

Erna E.N. Boldt appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging that defendants failed to investigate her allegations of elder abuse in violation of federal and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Seven Up Pete Venture v. Schweitzer, 523 F.3d 948 , 952 n. 4 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 258 , 172 L.Ed.2d 147 (2008); Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Boldt’s claims against the Oregon Attorney General because he was entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. See Seven Up Pete Venture, 523 F.3d at 952-53 .

The district court properly dismissed Boldt’s section 1983 claims for failure to state a claim. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not entitle Boldt to an investigation of her allegations of elder abuse. See Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 764-66 , 125 S.Ct. 2796 , 162 L.Ed.2d 658 (2005). Boldt fails to state a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim because even assuming defendants decided not to investigate her allegations fully based on her…