Case: 23-30772 Document: 63-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED December 9, 2024 No. 23-30772 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Troy B. Guidry, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus H U D Church Point Housing Authority; Rayne State Bank; Police Department City of Church Point, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:22-CV-6162 ______________________________ Before Jolly, Jones, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Troy Guidry, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. He seemingly brought claims against the HUD Church Point Housing Authority for discriminatory eviction under 42

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 23-30772 Document: 63-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2024

No. 23-30772

U.S.C. § 1982 and the Fair Housing Act;1 claims against Rayne State Bank for theft, forgery, and bank fraud under Louisiana law; and claims against the Church Point Police Department for wrongful arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Louisiana law. The district court dismissed Guidry’s claims against Rayne State Bank for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Guidry’s claims against the HUD Church Point Housing Authority and the Church Point Po- lice Department as time barred.

On appeal, Guidry largely restates his factual allegations against the defendants. Beyond asserting without support that he deserved a hearing, he makes no legal arguments challenging the district court’s subject matter ju- risdiction or statute of limitations rulings.

Because Guidry’s appeal lacks any arguable merit, it is frivolous.2 Ac- cordingly, Guidry’s appeal is, in all respects, DISMISSED.

_____________________ In his opening brief, Guidry also asserts that the HUD Church Point Housing Authority violated his Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) rights. In his complaint, he asserts that Christine Richard, a HUD Church Point Housing Authority employee, violated his HIPAA rights, though. The district court therefore did not address this claim in its order dismissing the claims against the HUD Church Point Housing Authority and this claim is not properly before us.

See 5th Cir. R. 42.2 (“If . . . it appears to the court that the appeal is frivolous and entirely without merit, the appeal will be dismissed.”); see also United States v. Dunham, 995 F.3d 45, 46 (5th Cir. 1993) (dismissing an appeal as frivolous because it “has no arguable basis in law or in fact”).