Thomas
Thomas v. Catlin
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Tammy Thomas appeals pro se the district court’s judgment for defendants in her action alleging public disclosure of private facts, invasion of privacy, and the violation of various state and federal health and research regulations in connection with her drug testing by the United States Olympic Committee. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo both a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim and summary judgment. Barnett v. Centoni 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). We affirm.
The district court properly entered judgment for defendants with respect to Thomas’ state tort claim for public disclosure of private facts because she failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant Catlin’s scientific article discussing the detection of steroids identified her in any way as the source of the positive urine samples. See Shulman v. Group W Prod., Inc., 18 Cal.4th 200 , 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 843 , 955 P.2d 469, 478 (1998). Nor did Thomas allege facts sufficient to show that the article would be offensive or objectionable to a reasonable person, or that it is not a topic of legitimate public concern. See id.