NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 05a0232n.06

Filed: March 30, 2005 Nos. 03-2087/2123/2124 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL P. O’BRIEN et al.,Plaintiffs-Appellants/CrossAppellees,

v. NEW BUFFALO TOWNSHIP et al.,Defendants-Appellees/CrossAppellants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Before: SILER, BATCHELDER, and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Daniel P. O’Brien was the orig inal owner of property in New Buffalo, Michigan, that ultimately became the Whi ttaker Woods Golf Community, a mixed-use development including a golf course, a clubhouse, a restaurant, single-family homes, and multi-family townhouses. The remaining plaint iffs, Whittaker Woods Golf Club, L.P., and Whittaker Woods Golf Associates , Inc., were formed by Daniel O’Brien and his wife for the sole purpose of owning and managing t he development. When defendant New Buffalo Township, through the remaining defendants – the township’s supervisor, trustees, employees, and its engineering consultant – denied the plaintiffs permits they needed to complete construction of the development, O’Brien, Whittaker Woods Golf Club, andNos. 03-2087/2123/2124

- 2 - Whittaker Woods Golf Associates filed suit against the defendants in federal district court, alleging that:
[T]he Township defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying a building permit to construct the first home at Whittaker Woods and in denying approval of water and sewer systems of Phase I of Whittaker Woods; that, following the November 2000 township elections, defendants retaliated against plaintiffs because Mr. O’Bri en had supported opposing candidates for township office; and that defendants li beled Mr. O’Brien in a September 2000 letter that falsely accused plaintiffs of engaging in construction of Whittaker Woods without the necessary permits.
After a suitable discovery period, the di strict judge issued an extensive 53-page written opinion disposing of su mmary judgment motions filed by all parties and effectively dismissing the plaintiffs’ lawsuit. The plai ntiffs now appeal from that opinion and order, asserting that the district court erred in finding no merit to thei r claims of retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment freedoms, violation of subst antive due process by engaging in arbitrary and capricious decision-making, and libel. The township defendants crossappeal, contending that plainti ff O’Brien had no standing to advance the claims asserted in the initial and amended complaints filed in this matter. Defendants Larry Merritt and Merritt Engineering, Inc., also cross-appeal, contend ing that O’Brien is without standing and that Merritt and his engineering fi rm cannot properly be deemed “state actors” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Having had the benefit of oral argumen t, and having studied the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, weare not persuaded that the district court erred in dismissingNos. 03-2087/2123/2124

- 3 - the complaint. The question of plaintiff O’ Brien’s standing to bring the action has been vigorously argued at each stage of the litigation. The districtcourt opted not to examine the issue at length, finding that although O’ Brien’s standing to sue in his own name may have been subject to dispute, “the issue ha[d] been rendered m oot” by the addition of the other plaintiffs to the suit. We agree. Moreover, because the reasons why judgment should be entered for the defendant s have been fully articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed opinion by this court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgm ent of the district court based upon the reasoning set out by that court in its opinion dated July 21, 2003.