Drumm v. US Dept of Housing

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-31087
STREUBY L. DRUMM, JR.; D & A LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP II; SHARLO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;
DRUMM REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARY; BEAL BANK, S.S.B.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
(97-CV-530)
_______________________________
January 4, 2000
Before JOLLY, EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellants Streuby L. Drumm, Jr., D & A Limited Partnership
II, Sharlo Limited Partnership, and Drumm Real Estate Management
appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their case against
appellees United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (“HUD”) and Beal Bank, S.S.B. (“Beal”). The district
court found that appellants lacked standing to press their claims
and that appellee HUD had not waived sovereign immunity.
After careful review of the parties’ briefs and the record,
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
we conclude that no reversible error occurred. The statutory
provision appellants claim HUD violated, 12 U.S.C. § 1701z-
11(k)(4), contains no free-standing waiver of sovereign immunity.
Moreover, because § 1701z-11(k)(4) commits to HUD’s discretion
the decision of which mortgages to sell, the Administrative
Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702, does not waive sovereign
immunity, either. Therefore, sovereign immunity barred the
district court’s consideration of appellants’ claims against HUD.
The district court did not err, therefore, when it dismissed
those claims, or the claims against Beal, which hinged on the
former. We therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED.
2