IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-41201
Summary Calendar
CYNTHIA RODRIGUEZ; JOVITA A. URRUTIA;
BEATRIZ HUERTA; ANTHONY HEFNER, Reverend,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
UNITED INTERNATIONAL, Etc.; ET AL.,
Defendants,
UNITED INTERNATIONAL, Investigative Services,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-98-CV-85
--------------------
June 18, 2002
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Cynthia Rodriguez, Jovita Urrutia, Beatriz Huerta, and
Anthony Hefner appeal from the magistrate judge’s sua sponte
dismissal of their complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Rodriguez, Urrutia, and Hefner
contend that the magistrate judge mischaracterized their civil
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 01-41201
-2-
conspiracy claims against United International Investigative
Services (United) as private whistleblower claims. Huerta argues
that the magistrate judge erred in concluding that the state
court’s partial summary judgment dismissed all of her claims.
We review the magistrate judge’s dismissal of an action for
failure to state a claim de novo. Blackburn v. City of Marshall,
42 F.3d 925, 931 (5th Cir. 1995).
Appellants Rodriguez, Urrutia, and Hefner have failed to
state a valid claim for civil conspiracy under Texas law. Banc
One Capital Partners Corp. v. Kneipper, 67 F.3d 1187, 1194-95
& n.10 (5th Cir. 1995); Austin v. Healthtrust, Inc., 967 S.W.2d
400, 401-03 (Tex. 1998); CRSS Inc. v. Runion, 992 S.W.2d 1, 8
(Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the
magistrate judge’s dismissal of these appellants’ complaint for
failure to state a claim.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Huerta’s claim
that United breached its contract or committed fraud with regard
to her health insurance coverage, which was alleged in the third
cause of action of the plaintiffs’ second amended petition, was
not dismissed by the state trial court. The magistrate judge
thus erred in determining that the state court had dismissed all
of Huerta’s health insurance claims. Accordingly, we VACATE the
court’s order of dismissal only as to this claim. The case is
REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
No. 01-41201
-3-
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART. Costs shall
be borne by Appellants.