1970; Brown v. Harris, 240 F.3d 383, 388-89 (4th Cir.2001). Furthermore, like the Supreme Court, the Fourth Circuit has never held that an inmate has a constitutional right to privacy in medical treatment. See Rollins, 2012 WL 4974966, at *2; Sherman, 258 F.Supp.2d at 443-44; Adams, 906 F.Supp. at 1056-57; cf. Watson v. Lowcountry Red Cross, 974 F.2d 482, 487-88 & n. 9 (4th Cir.1992) (discussing privacy interest of constitutional significance of blood donors, but finding no violation of any such interest); Taylor v. Best, 746 F.2d 220, 225 (4th Cir.1984) (discussing privacy interest of constitutional significance of inmate in inmate’s family history, but finding that the privacy interest is outweighed by compelling public interest in ensuring security of prison and effective r .2001) (<HOLDING>); Powell v. Schriver, 175 F.3d 107, 109, 112
holding that constitutional right of privacy does not apply to medical records recognizing that deliberately indifferent disclosure of hivpositive inmates medical status could violate inmates constitutional right to medical privacy when made to corrections officer escorts and by loud announcement holding that an inmate has a privacy interest in guarding against disclosure of sensitive medical information from other inmates subject to legitimate penological interests holding inmates have no constitutional right to receive a particular or requested course of treatment and prison doctors remain free to exercise their independent medical judgment recognizing that gratuitous disclosure of inmates status as a transsexual as humor or gossip and in the presence of other inmates and staff members violates inmatess constitutional right to medical privacy