Filed: Apr. 05, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-60499 Summary Calendar _ DAVID RICHARDSON; ET AL., Plaintiffs, DAVID RICHARDSON, doing business as D and B Partnership Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BRUCE BABBIT, Secretary, United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:98-CV-25-D-D _ April 4, 2000 Before JONES, SMITH and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PE
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-60499 Summary Calendar _ DAVID RICHARDSON; ET AL., Plaintiffs, DAVID RICHARDSON, doing business as D and B Partnership Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BRUCE BABBIT, Secretary, United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:98-CV-25-D-D _ April 4, 2000 Before JONES, SMITH and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 99-60499
Summary Calendar
_______________________
DAVID RICHARDSON; ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
DAVID RICHARDSON, doing
business as D and B Partnership
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BRUCE BABBIT, Secretary, United States
Department of the Interior, National
Park Service,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:98-CV-25-D-D
_________________________________________________________________
April 4, 2000
Before JONES, SMITH and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
David and Barbara Richardson, doing business as D & B
Partnership, appeal the dismissal of their complaint which
challenged the National Park Service’s denial of their request for
certification of historic significance of the Hahan-Richardson
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Building in Columbus, Mississippi. The decision of the National
Park Service was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of decision,
or otherwise not in accordance with the law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A);
Texas Oil and Gas Ass’n v. EPA,
161 F.3d 923, 933 (5th Cir. 1998).
In particular, the appeal decision noted and photos in
the record confirm that the building was a gutted shell lacking a
roof and all the interior when the Richardsons purchased it. The
front facade had lost its original windows. Whether such a
structure should be certified raises a question of professional
judgment informed by the NPS’s expertise, an expertise this court
lacks. There is a reasonable basis for the Secretary’s decision,
and we will not disturb it.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2