right to privacy — in medical or disability information. See Travis, 12 F.Supp.2d at 925; Pryor, 171 F.3d at 1288 n. 10; Condon v. Reno, 155 F.3d at 464 n. 9. In Alexander v. Peffer, the Eighth Circuit noted that some “highly personal” medical information may implicate a constitutional right to privacy. See 993 F.2d 1348, 1350-51 (8th Cir.1993). However, no blanket constitutional privacy protection exists for medical information. See Cooksey, 289 F.3d at 517 (finding that “all mental health information is not created equal and should not be treated categorically under a privacy rights analysis.”)- Here, Plaintiffs Complaint fails to allege facts demonstrating that Plaintiff provided any “highly personal” medical information to the DPS. See Kiminski, 2013 WL 6872425, at *15 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Plaintiffs § 1983 constitutional
holding that a plaintiff can show that she is qualified by presenting credible evidence that she continued to possess the objective qualifications she held when she was hired holding that plaintiff did not properly plead an individualcapacity claim because she did not allege that defendant pucinski entered the incorrect information herself holding that plaintiff had no jurisdiction in federal court because she failed to allege a state law claim but declining to discuss pleading requirement to set forth charge of discrimination holding plaintiff failed to demonstrate disparate treatment because she failed to show she was similarly situated to coworker to whom she compared herself holding that because the plaintiff did not allege facts indicating what specific medical information she provided to dps she failed to state a constitutional claim