Floyd Abston, Jr., appeals the district court’s dismissal, for want of prosecution and under its inherent authority, of the suit he brought to stop foreclosure upon his house. Insofar as Abston contends that the dismissal was only for want of prosecution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), our reading of the record refutes this contention and shows that the suit was dismissed both because the district court found it frivolous and because Abston failed to appear for a hearing and offered no good reason for his failure to appear.

Under Abston’s view, the district court erred by dismissing his suit for want of prosecution because he missed only one hearing, and this was due to a misunderstanding. He also contends that the district court erred by not considering lesser sanctions before dismissing his suit and that he has a valid claim under the Truth in Lending Act. Our review of the record and the parties’ filings shows no abuse of discretion in connection with the district court’s conclusion that the suit was frivolous and its concomitant dismissal on this basis. See Gonzalez v. Trinity Marine Group, Inc., 117 F.3d 894, 898 (5th Cir. 1997).

AFFIRMED.