
    Ihor Chandrycki JASON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE INC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-35070.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 10, 2013.
    
    Filed June 20, 2013.
    Ihor Chandrycki Jason, Auburn, WA, pro se.
    Amy Magnano, Bennett Bigelow & Leedom P.S., David B. Robbins, Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
    Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ihor Chandrycki Jason appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging negligence, inadequate care, false imprisonment, and fraud claims related to the denial of medical care to him as a Medicare patient. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir.2008), and may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Jason’s action was proper because Jason failed to allege a cognizable claim under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”), see Baker v. Adventist Health, Inc., 260 F.3d 987, 992 (9th Cir.2001) (medical malpractice is not actionable under the EMTALA), and because there is no private right of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1347, which defines a party’s criminal liability for Medicare fraud, see Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78-80, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975) (“a bare criminal statute, with absolutely no indication that civil enforcement of any kind was available to anyone” does not give rise to an implied civil cause of action).

Jason’s contentions regarding defendants’ allegedly false assertions in their briefs and the district court’s alleged failure to address his pending motion for summary judgment are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     