*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 27, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 06-30182

Summary Calendar

_____________________

NICOLAS ESTIVERNE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

TIMES-PICAYUNE LLC; KEITH O'BRIEN; SUSAN FINCH;

UNIDENTIFIED PARTIES; CHARLES PLATTSMIER, In

His Individual Capacity and as Chief Disciplinary

Counsel for the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary

Board and His Insurer (unknown),

Defendants - Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:05-CV-2227

_________________________________________________________________

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nicolas Estiverne appeals the district court’s dismissal of

his suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. This case arose

after The Times-Picayune published a front-page story on May 31,

2005, headlined “Ex-lawyer accused of bilking ill senior citizen,”

that described criminal allegations against Estiverne. Estiverne

avers that he was told by the newspaper’s reporters that Charles

Plattsmier, the Chief Disciplinary Counsel for the Louisiana
2

Attorney Discipline Board, gave them sealed files concerning

Estiverne’s 2000 resignation from the Louisiana state bar.

Estiverne claimed that the resulting article defamed him and

violated his right to privacy, and that the defendants conspired to

violate his Fourteenth Amendment rights. The only argument

Estiverne appears to offer on appeal, however, is that the district

court erred in failing to address alleged racial discrimination by

Plattsmier. Estiverne contends that Plattsmier’s racial prejudice

was the underlying motive for the defamation and invasion of

privacy he is alleged to have suffered. As is made clear in the

opinion of the district court, however, Estiverne’s claim under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 must allege both the deprivation of “a right or

interest secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States

... [and] that the deprivation occurred under color of state law.”

Doe v. Rains County Indep. School Dist., 66 F.3d 1402, 1406 (5th

Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). Reputational injury “is neither

‘liberty’ nor ‘property’ guaranteed against state deprivation

without due process of law,” Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712

(1976), unless “the injury is combined with the impairment of some

more tangible government benefit.” Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S.

226, 240 (1991). Estiverne has not alleged a violation of any

right guaranteed by federal law because damage to his reputation is

the only injury Estiverne alleges in his complaint. It is of no

moment to this analysis that Estiverne believes that racial animus

motivated Plattsmier’s actions. Due to the lack of diverse
3

parties, Estiverne’s defamation and invasion of privacy claims are

only actionable under state law. Estiverne has not previously

asserted an equal protection claim and may not do so for the first

time on appeal. See Charter School of Pine Grove, Inc. v. St.

Helena Parish Sch. Bd., 417 F.3d 444, 447 (5th Cir. 2005).

After careful review of the record and briefs, the thorough

and well-reasoned judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.