IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50371

Summary Calendar

DAVID MCINTYRE; MADELEINE B. CONNOR, 

Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

ERIC CASTRO, a Director and President of the Lost Creek Municipal Utility 

District, in his official capacity as a Municipal Utility District Director and in 

his individual and official capacities; NANCY NAEVE, a Director of the Lost 

Creek Municipal Utility District, in her official capacity as a Municipal 

Utility District Director and in her individual and official capacities; GARY 

SERTICH, a Director of the Lost Creek Municipal Utility District, in his 

official capacity as a Municipal Utility District Director and in his individual 

and official capacities; LEAH STEWART, a Director of the Lost Creek 

Municipal Utility District, in her official capacity as a Municipal Utility 

District Director and in her individual and official capacities; CHUCK 

MCCORMICK, a Director of the Lost Creek Municipal Utility District, in his 

official capacity as a Municipal Utility District Director and in his individual 

and official capacities, 

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:15-CV-1100

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 27, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50371 Document: 00513737453 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/27/2016
No. 16-50371

2

PER CURIAM:*

Appellants appealed the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of their Section 

1983 claim based on impermissible retaliation under the First Amendment. 

This court reviews “de novo motions to dismiss.” Jebaco, Inc. v. Harrah’s 

Operating Co., Ins., 587 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir. 2009). “Viewing the facts as 

pled in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, a motion to dismiss . . . 

should not be granted if a complaint provides enough facts to state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face,” however, “the complaint must allege more 

than labels and conclusions, a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action will not do, and factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to 

relief above the speculative level.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). 

Our thorough review of the appellants’ sixth amended complaint, the

briefs in this case, the other pertinent parts of the record, and the applicable 

law reveals no error. The district court properly held that appellants failed to 

state a claim and correctly determined that “[t]heir vague assertions fall short 

of both establishing the personal involvement required to state a claim under 

Section 1983 and meeting pleading standards requiring factual allegations 

which plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Mcintyre v. Castro, 

2016 WL 1714919, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2016). The complaint lacks any 

specific factual allegations that appellees organized and directed state action 

against appellants. The only two specific allegations either do not constitute 

state action (signing a petition) or do not constitute retaliation (a status update 

regarding the state of pending litigation). We, therefore, AFFIRM the district 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 16-50371 Document: 00513737453 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/27/2016
No. 16-50371

3

court’s dismissal of the First Amendment retaliation claim and remand of the 

state law claims. 

 Case: 16-50371 Document: 00513737453 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/27/2016