*2 Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: [*]
Appellees point out in their petition for rehearing that the judgment fails to address the state law claims of Appellant, for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress and the 42 U.S.C. § 1985 conspiracy claim. Because these claims were not raised or argued on appeal by Appellant, the judgment of the district court dismissing them is affirmed.
The petition for rehearing is granted. The judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause is remanded only as to the federal privacy invasion claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 U.S.C. § 2510 as well as the state law claim under T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE § 123.002.
Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part. Remanded. [*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.