
    Patricia EVANS; et al, Plaintiffs, Patricia Evans; Authurine Brisbon, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; et al, Defendants, Housing Authority of New Orleans; Carmen F. Valenti, Housing Authority of New Orleans Board of Commissioners; Catherine D. Lamberg, Administrative Receiver; Cynthia Wiggins, Resident Advisor to the Board, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 04-30423.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Jan. 6, 2005.
    Patricia Evans, New Orleans, LA, pro se.
    Leslie Parker Tullier, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Proceeding pro se, plaintiffs Patricia Evans and Authurine Brison appeal the district court’s dismissal of their claim against the Housing Authority of New Orleans (“HANO”), and HANO employees Mr. Carmen F. Valenti, Ms. Catherine Lam-berg, and Ms. Cynthia Wiggins. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated their constitutional rights by building and operating their subsidized housing on a waste site, thus creating horrible living conditions, and “retaliating” against plaintiffs. Although plaintiffs’ original complaint did not cite 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the district, court construed their pro se compliant liberally and found that their allegations might be construed as being brought under § 1983.

The district court gave plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaint against Mr. Carmen F. Valenti, Ms. Catherine Lamberg and Ms. Cynthia Wiggins, all employees of the Housing Authority of New Orleans, to plead facts sufficient to overcome their defense of qualified immunity. See Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427 (5th Cir.1995). After considering all of plaintiffs’ subsequent filings the district court found that plaintiffs had not pleaded facts sufficient to make out such a claim, or any other federal claim, and dismissed their claims with prejudice.

Upon a review of the record we find that plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to establish any federal cause of action and the district court therefore properly dismissed their claims.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     