James Tate, Jr. v. University Medical Center

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff-Appellant James Tate appeals the district court’s dismissal of certain claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and grant of summary judgment for Defendant-Appel-lees University Medical Center of Southern Nevada et al. (UMC). The parties are familiar with the facts underlying the appeal and thus we do not include them here.

A claim under § 1983 requires allegations “(1) that a person acting under color of state law (2) committed an act that deprived the claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Red-man v. Cnty. of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1439 (9th Cir.1991). Tate was not deprived of a Constitutionally protected property right.

Tate’s argument that his removal from the on-call schedule was a de facto suspension of Tate’s Constitutionally protected clinical privileges is foreclosed to Tate by this court’s earlier published order in this case. See Tate v. Univ. Med. Ctr., 606 F.3d 631 , 634 (9th Cir.2010) (“An employment arrangement is distinct from clinical privileges: employment is merely one method among many of exercising clinical privileges at a hospital_Here, Dr. Tate had only an employment agreement…