
    Marian ORR, D.O., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEVADA STATE BOARD OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE; Paul Kalekas, D.O.; C. Dean Milne, D.O.; Ronald Hedger, D.O.; Paul Edwards, Esq.; DOES, Defendants I through X, Inclusive; ROES, Corporations A through Z, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-16445
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 9, 2016  San Francisco, California
    Filed August 11, 2016
    
      Jacob Hafter, Attorney, HafterLaw, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Louis A. Ling, Attorney, Louis Ling, Reno, NV, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: GRABER and MeKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and LYNN, Chief District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P, 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Barbara M. G. Lynn, United States Chief District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marian Orr appeals the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging that the Nevada State Board of Osteopathic Medicine and its members (collectively, “the Board”) violated her Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights by imposing a $250 fíne as a condition for renewing her medical license. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of the motion to dismiss. Castle v. Eurofresh, Inc., 731 F.3d 901, 905 (9th Cir. 2013).

Orr received notice of the Board’s concerns with her license renewal application and, before imposing the fíne, the Board afforded Orr an opportunity to attend a hearing with counsel and to present her arguments and evidence. This procedure met due process requirements under the Fourteenth Amendment. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985).

Orr’s claim that the Board failed to comply with Nevada’s statutory license renewal requirements in imposing the fine does not raise a federal constitutional claim and is not cognizable under § 1983. See Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 119, 112 S.Ct. 1061, 117 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992) (holding that § 1983 “does not provide a remedy for abuses that do not violate federal law”); see also Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 541, 105 S.Ct. 1487 (noting that the process due under the Fourteenth Amendment “is not to be found” in state statutory provisions).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     