Frank James Byrne, Jr. v. Berks County Jail

BLD-129 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 24-1193
___________
FRANK JAMES BYRNE, JR.,
Appellant
v.
BERKS COUNTY JAIL; C/O NEIF; B.C.J.S. PRIME CARE;
NURSE SHANNON
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 5-23-cv-05071)
District Judge: Honorable John F. Murphy
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
May 23, 2024
Before: BIBAS, MATEY, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 31, 2024)
_________
OPINION*
_________
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7
does not constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM
Frank J. Byrne, Jr. appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. We will summarily
affirm the District Court’s order.
The facts of this case are well known to the parties and set forth in the District
Court’s order and need not be discussed at length. Byrne alleged that the named
defendants violated his rights under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act (“HIPAA”) by disclosing Byrne’s prescribed medications to “a whole day room” of
fellow prisoners and guards. The District Court screened and dismissed the complaint for
failure to state a claim after concluding that Byrne was attempting to sue under a federal
law that provided no private right of action. This appeal followed.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Summary action is appropriate if
there is no substantial question presented in the appeal. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4. The
District Court correctly concluded that HIPAA does not provide a private right of action.
See Payne v. Taslimi, 998 F.3d 648, 660 (4th Cir. 2021) (noting that “[e]very circuit
court to consider whether HIPAA created a private right to sue has found that it does not”
and citing cases from the Second, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits). As a
result, Byrne’s complaint fails to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Finally,
we agree with the District Court that further amendment would be futile. Grayson v.
Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).1
1 On appeal, Byrne merely reasserts his allegations that the defendants violated his
rights under HIPAA, and does not discuss whether or not private citizens may bring a

-- 2 of 3 --

3
For the above reasons, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See 3d
Cir. L.A.R. 27.4.
claim under the law. HIPAA delegated enforcement authority to the Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services. See Meadows v. United Servs., Inc., 963
F.3d 240, 244 (2d Cir. 2020) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-5(a)(1)).

-- 3 of 3 --