[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 12 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 1 :0 9- cv -0 00 37 -WL S JOSEP H HOW ARD, III, ANNIE HOW ARD, W ENDELL W ILLIAMS, Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s,

ve rs us COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES HOMEOW NERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Defen da nt s, CITY OF ALBANY, GEO RGIA, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st 6, 2 01 2) Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR, an d C OX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

Case: 11-15129 Date Filed: 08/06/2012 Page: 1 of 4PER CURI AM:

Jo se ph Howar d, III, Ann ie Howar d, an d W en de ll W il li a ms (th e “ Pl ai nt iff s” ) fil ed th is 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 act io n aft er th e Ci ty of Alb an y , Geo rg ia (th e “ C i t y”)

rezo ne d pr op ert y own ed by Jo se ph Howar d, III. Acco r d i n g t o th e Pl ai nt iff s, th is

rezo ni ng m ad e it im

po ss ib le fo r th em to co m

pl et e a pl an ne d de ve lo pm en t pr ojec t on th e pr op ert y . The co m

pl ai nt as se rts fo ur co un ts ag ai ns t th e Ci ty an d ot he r Defen da nt s who are no t pa rti es to th is ap pe al

. Co un t One al l e g e s t h a t th e Defen da nt s vi ol at ed Pl ai nt iff s’ su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s rig ht s. Co un t Two al le ge s a pr o c e d u r a l du e
pr oc es s vi ol at io n. Co un t Thre e cl ai m s th at a m un ic ip al po li cy vi ol at ed th e Pl ai nt iff s’ du e pr oc es s rig ht s an d Co un t Fo ur cl ai m s th at th e Defen da nt s co ns pi red to vi ol at e th e Pl ai nt iff s’ du e p ro ces s ri gh ts

. The pa rti es fil ed c r o s s - m ot io ns fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. The di st ric t co ur t
gr an te d th e Ci ty’ s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, de ni ed th e Pl ai nt iff s’ m ot io n, an d

en te red jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e Defen da nt s. Pl ai nt iff s ap pe al

. A s we co ns tru e th e Pl ai nt iff s’ br ie f, it pr es en ts fo ur is su es : (1 ) whe th er t h e di st ric t co ur t erre d by co nc lu di ng th at th e Pl ai nt iff s di d no t as se rt a rip e ta ki ng s cl ai m

un de r th e Fi fth Am en dm en t; (2 ) whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by de ci di ng th at th e Pl ai nt iff s fai le d to pu t fo rth ev id en ce to su pp or t a reg ul at or y t a k i n g s cl ai m ; (3 ) whe th er t he di st ric t co ur t er red by find in g t ha t t he Cit y ne ve r is su ed th e Pl ai nt iff s a

2 Case: 11-15129 Date Filed: 08/06/2012 Page: 2 of 4bu il di ng pe rm i t f or th e de ve lo pm en t pr ojec t; an d (4 ) whe th er th e Pl ai nt iff s ha d a

ve st ed rig ht to de ve lo p t he pro pe rty pro te ct ed by the du e p ro ces s cl au se . W e no te a t t h e o u ts et th at th e Pl ai nt iff s ha ve waiv ed an y ch al le ng e to th e di st ric t co ur t’s en try of su m m ary jud gm en t on Co un ts O n e , Thre e, an d Fo ur of th e

co m pl ai nt

. The Pl ai nt iff

s’ br ie f m ak es pa ss in g refe ren ce to th e di st ric t co ur t’s en try of su m mar y ju dg m en t in fav or of th e Defen da nt s on th e Pl ai nt iff s’ su bs ta nt iv e du e
pr oc es s cl ai m . Thi s refe ren ce ap pe ars in th e Pl ai nt iff s’ arg um en t reg ard in g reg ul at or y
ta ki ng s an d th e br ie f do es no t dev el op an y arg um en ts reg ard in g th e su bs ta nt iv e du e
pr oc es s cl ai m . The refo re, an y ch al le ng e to th e en try of su m m a r y ju d g men t on th e

su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s cl ai m ha s be en waiv ed

. Se e Far ro w v. W es t , 32 0 F.3 d 12 35 , 12 42 n.1 0 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 03 ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Si m il arl y , Pl ai nt iff s do no t m ak e an y
arg um en t reg ard in g th ei r cl ai m of co ns pi racy or th ei r cl ai m th at th ere was an

un co ns ti tu ti on al m

un ic ip al po li cy . ( Se e App el la nt s’ Br. at 1- 2.) So th es e arg um en ts

are a ls o wai ve d. Far ro w , 32 0 F .3d at 1 24 2 n .10

. The di st ric t co ur t al so pr op erl y rej e c te d th e Pl ai nt iff s’ Fi fth Am en dm en t
ta ki ng s cl ai m . W e do ub t whe th er an y ta ki ng s cl ai m was pr op erl y al le ge d, bu t in an y

ev en t, a ta ki ng s cl ai m was no t rip e f o r th e reas on s st at ed in th e di st ric t co ur t’s
op in io n. ( Se e Dkt . 93 at 7 , 8 & 9 .)

3

Case: 11-15129 Date Filed: 08/06/2012 Page: 3 of 4Th e Pl ai nt iff s’ br ie f al so arg ue s th at th ey ha d a ve st ed rig ht to de ve lo p th e
pr op ert y be cau se th e Ci ty ha d is su ed a co ns tru ct io n pe rm it fo r t he de ve lo pm en t. 1
Howev er, th e Pl ai nt iff

s ha ve fai le d to ci te to an y po rti on of th e reco rd t o sh ow th at th ey he ld a co ns tru ct io n or bu il di ng pe rm it fo r th e de ve lo pm en t. The refo re, we fin d

no erro r in th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng th at th e Ci ty ne ve r is su ed th e Pl ai nt iff s a bu il di ng pe rm it

. Fu rth erm or e, a pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s cl ai m un de r § 19 83 req ui res

an al le ga ti on an d pr oo f of co ns t i t ut io na ll y in ad eq ua te pr oc es s. Se e Gra yd en v. Rho de s , 3 45 F.3 d 12 25 , 1 23 2 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 20 03 ) (ci ti ng Cr yd er v. Oxen di ne , 2 4 F.3 d
17 5, 17 7 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 94 ))

. Th us , ev en if th e Pl ai nt iff s ha d a ve st ed pr op ert y in te res te d pr ot ect ed by Geo rg ia la w, th ei r cl ai m fai ls be cau se th ey di d no t sh ow th at th ey rece iv ed in ad eq ua te pr oc es s. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err by en te rin g su m m ary jud gm en t o n t hi s cl ai m . Fi nd in g no erro r in th e di st ric t co ur t’s en try of su m m ary jud gm en t in th is cas e, we affi rm . AFFIR MED.

To the extent the P l ai n t i ff s s ee k to use Geor g ia’s vested rig hts doctrine as a basis for 1 injunctive relief independe nt from t h eir § 1983 claims, they failed to asser t this claim in their complaint. There fore , we will not consider the doctrine a s an indepe ndent basis for r elief. 4 Case: 11-15129 Date Filed: 08/06/2012 Page: 4 of 4