This question has been considered by the Fifth and Sixth Circuits, both of which have held that the 1968 Act was not designed to federalize the National Guard, and that Guard officials may be sued under section 1983. Rowe v. State of Tennessee, 609 F.2d 259 (6th Cir.1979); NeSmith v. Fulton, 615 F.2d 196 (5th Cir.1980). See also Schultz v. Wellman, 717 F.2d 301 (6th Cir.1983) (following Rowe); Bollen v. National Guard Bureau, 449 F.Supp. 343, 349 (W.D.Pa.1978) (following Lasher without discussing the 1968 Act); Syrek v. Pennsylvania Air National Guard, 371 F.Supp. 1349 (W.D.Pa.1974) (following Lasher after explicitly finding that the 1968 Act did not federalize the Guard), rev ’d on other grounds, 537 F.2d 66 (3d Cir.1976); contra Vargas v. Char don, 405 F.Supp. 1348, 1351 (D.P.R.1975) (<HOLDING>). The legislative history of the 1968 Act
holding that a municipality may be held liable as a person under  1983 holding adjutant general not liable under section 1983 without discussing the 1968 act holding that claim brought under section 1983 of the civil rights act constituted a personal injury tort claim because section 1983 confers a general remedy for injuries to personal rights recognizing implied private action under the plat act rejecting implied private action under the national flood insurance act of 1968 holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983