The Honor able Ha rold A. Ackerman, Senior United S tates Dist rict J udg e for the District of * New Jersey , sitti ngby

desig nation. NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0651n.06 F iled: Septem ber 4, 2007 No. 06-6325 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

JE F F R E Y C LA I R , JU L I E C LA I R KR I F T , an d

J. CL AI R ENTERPRI SES, I NC., Pla int if fs -A pp e lla nts , v. N O RT H E RNKE N T U CK Y I N D E PEN DENT HEAL TH DI STRI CT, RI CK MARKSBERRY, STEVE DEVI

NE, and D AVI D FO RTNER, De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s.

_______________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __________ )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM T HE UNI TED

STATES D I STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

Be fore : BATCHEL DER and GRI FF I N, Circuit J udg es; and ACKERMAN, D istrict J udg e. * PER CU RIAM
. Plaintiffs J eff

rey Clair, J ulie Clair Krift, and J
. Clair Enterpr ises appea l the district court’s g rant of summary

judgme nt in favor of

defe ndants and subseque nt dismi ssal of their pr ocedur al and
su bs tanti ve du e pr oc e ss c la ims br ou g ht p ur su ant to 42 U.S.C . § 19 83 ari sin gout of de fe nd ants ’ denial of pla intiffs’ food ser vice a pplication permit. In a we ll-rea soned opinion, the distr i ct co u rt concluded that plaintiffs did not have a
co n s t i tu t ionally

protec ted prope rty

rig ht to a food-se rvice permit for pur poses of proc edura l andCase No. 06- 6325

Clair, et al. v. N. K

y. Inde p. Health Dist., et al.

- 2 - substantive due proc ess claims. Specifica lly , the di strict court concluded: (1) the Health District’s signific ant degree of discre tion i n t h e p ermit ting pr ocess f orec losed any

leg itimate claim of
e nti tle me nt by Cl a ir ; and (2 ) f oo d- se rv ic e pe rm its we re ana log ou s to oth e r t y pe s o f p ro pe rt

y -u se permits in which courts have held that “first-time a pplicants for liquor or

enter tainment licenses do not have a protec ted prope rty interest” with r espec t to a due proc ess ana ly sis. W omen’ s Med. Prof’l Cor p. v . B air d , 4 3 8 F. 3 d

5 9 5 , 6 1 1 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( ci t i n g W ojcik v. Cit

y of Romulus , 257 F.3d 600, 60 9- 10 (6 Cir . 2 00 1) ); se eals o Sa nd e rso n v . V ill . o f G re e nh ill

s , 726 F.2d 284, 286 ( 6th Cir. 1984) th (holdingthat a first-time a pplicant for an amuseme nt license did not have a leg itimate claim of
e nti tl e me nt t o th e li c e n s e b e c a use the c ircumstance s were analog ous to other license /permit decisions holding the sa

me). We a g re e wi th t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

tha t pl a int if fs – f ir st- tim e a pp lic ants fo r a

fo od -s e rv ic e p e rm it – did not possess a co n s t i t u t i o n ally protec ted prope rty

rig ht for purpose s of a due proce ss or substantive due proc ess ana ly sis, and, thus, the ir claims are fore closed. There fore , we aff irm for the
rea sons stated by

the district court on this issue. After revie wingthe re cord, the parties’ briefs, a nd the applica

ble law, we conclude that a pane l opinion further a ddressingthis iss ue would not serve a jurisprude ntial purpose. Affir med.