[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-10582

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:12-cv-00501-RH-CAS

WILLIAM C. MANLEY, 

An Individual, 

MMM MANAGEMENT OF TALLAHASSEE INC., 

A Florida Corporation, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

CITY OF TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(August 7, 2013)

Before CARNES, Chief Judge, MARTIN, and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 13-10582 Date Filed: 08/07/2013 Page: 1 of 4 
2

William Manley1 appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice 

his complaint against the City of Tallahassee for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted. Manley alleges that the city deprived him of his

property interests in a parcel of real property without procedural due process when 

it granted a site plan amendment for a parcel located next to his. We review de 

novo a court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim, accepting the 

factual allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff. Speaker v. United States Dept. of Health and Human 

Servs. Ctrs. for Disease Control and Prevention, 623 F.3d 1371, 1379 (11th Cir. 

2010).

In 1981 Manley and Rib, Inc., Manley’s neighboring landowner, agreed to 

share the use of a driveway and stormwater drainage system. In 2008 Rib decided 

to sell its parcel to Super-Suds Express No. 2, LLC and submitted a site plan 

amendment to allow Super-Suds to use the property for a car wash. Manley 

alleges that the site plan violates his agreement with Rib and unreasonably alters 

the drainage between the properties in violation of state law. The city approved the 

plan without giving Manley notice or an opportunity to be heard. Manley argues

that the city’s actions deprived him of his property interest without due process.

 1 As the district court noted, Manley assigned the rights at issue in this case to MMM 

Management of Tallahassee, Inc. at some point after filing his complaint. Because the 

assignment makes no difference in this case and for ease of understanding, we will follow the 

district court’s lead and refer to the appellant as Manley.

Case: 13-10582 Date Filed: 08/07/2013 Page: 2 of 4 
3

“In assessing a claim based on an alleged denial of procedural due process a 

court must first decide whether the complaining party has been deprived of a 

constitutionally protected liberty or property interest. Absent such a deprivation, 

there can be no denial of due process.” Econ. Dev. Corp. of Dade Cnty, Inc. v. 

Stierheim, 782 F.2d 952, 953–54 (11th Cir. 1986). Manley cites several Florida 

cases establishing that rezoning procedures require giving all affected landowners 

notice and an opportunity to be heard. See, e.g. Gulf & Eastern Development 

Corp. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 354 So.2d 57, 59 (Fla. 1978). Manley argues that 

he should be treated like a landowner who has been affected by the rezoning of a 

neighboring parcel. See WAGS Transp’n Sys, Inc. v. Miami Beach, 88 So.2d 751, 

752 (Fla. 1956) (holding that the rezoning of an area affected the rights of 

neighboring landowners and they should have been given the opportunity to be 

heard). 

Zoning cases do not apply here, however. Zoning laws give landowners 

certain property interests, such as the right to live in a residential area. If a 

government changes zoning laws to allow non-residential developments in an area, 

it has deprived the neighboring landowners of a property interest because they no 

longer have the benefit of residential-only land use restrictions and their property 

values likely will decrease. Cf. WAGS, 88 So.2d at 752 (holding that the 

landowners’ property interests were affected by the rezoning because they bought 

Case: 13-10582 Date Filed: 08/07/2013 Page: 3 of 4 
4

the property relying on the zoning ordinance that required all property in the 

district to be residential and a change in that zoning would decrease the value of 

their property). In contrast, the approval of the site plan did not deprive Manley of

any property interests given to him by the agreement with Rib or state law. The 

fact that the city approved the site plan does not prevent a state court from finding 

that construction under the plan violated the agreement or state law. See Westland 

Skating Ctr, Inc. v. Gus Machado Buick, Inc., 542 So.2d 959, 964 (Fla. 1989) 

(holding that a landowner’s compliance with a building code was not a defense to a 

claim that his construction violated Florida drainage laws). As the district court 

correctly found, Manley still has the same property interests in the driveway and 

the stormwater drainage system that he had before the site plan was approved, and 

if the new construction hurts those interests, Manley can pursue a remedy in state 

court. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-10582 Date Filed: 08/07/2013 Page: 4 of 4