district court properly dismissed the claim against McDonald because the statute pursuant to which the suit was brought does not create a cause of action against individuals. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal. * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. 1 . Dennis alone appealed the judgment; his wife is not listed as an appellant. 2 . In the opposition to the motion to dismiss, Dennis alleges that McDonald acted contrary to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1701 and 1708. These, however, are criminal statutes that do not create a private right of action. See Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286-87, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001)
holding that where statutory remedies exist private employees do not have a private cause of action for violation of state constitutional rights recognizing the cause of action recognizing cause of action holding that private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by congress courts may not create a cause of action absent statutory intent holding that a private plaintiff may not being an action under the family educational rights and privacy act of 1974 because that statute does not create personal rights to enforce under 42 usc  1983