Case Name: PORT OF JACKSONVILLE MARITIME AD HOC COMMITTEE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Admiral J. B. HAYES, Commandant, United States Coast Guard et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1980-06-16
Citations: 620 F.2d 567
Docket Number: No. 80-5105
Parties: PORT OF JACKSONVILLE MARITIME AD HOC COMMITTEE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Admiral J. B. HAYES, Commandant, United States Coast Guard et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 620
Pages: 567–567

Head Matter:
PORT OF JACKSONVILLE MARITIME AD HOC COMMITTEE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Admiral J. B. HAYES, Commandant, United States Coast Guard et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 80-5105.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 16, 1980.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Aug. 19,1980.
Mahoney, Hadlow & Adams, Guy 0. Farmer, II, Thomas M. Baumer, Michael B. Wedner, Jacksonville, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.
Mathews, Osborne, Ehrlick, McNatt, Go-belman & Cobb, John E. Mathews, Jr., James E. Cobb, Julie H. Kuntz, Jacksonville, Fla., for Jacksonville Transportation Authority.
Robert S. Yerkes, Asst. U. S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., for Hayes.
Before GODBOLD, TJOFLAT and SAM D. JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Ad Hoc Committee sought judicial review in the district court of a decision by the Coast Guard to grant a permit for the construction of a fixed highway bridge across the St. Johns River and Mill Cove, near Jacksonville, Florida. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants.
The decision of the Coast Guard is affirmed on the basis of the district court opinion, 485 F.Supp. 741 (M.D.Fla.1980).
AFFIRMED.
. Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706.
. Appellant contends that the Commandant did not properly delegate his authority to issue the bridge permit to his Chief Bridge Officer, and thus that the permit is invalid. Appellant further contends that the district court did not, and could not on the record before it, resolve this question. We do not decide this issue, as appellant did not raise it below and thus is precluded from raising it before this court. See Higginbotham v. Ford Motor Co., 540 F.2d 762, 768 n.10 (5th Cir, 1976); Excavators and Erectors, Inc. v. Bullard Engineers, Inc., 489 F.2d 318, 320 (5th Cir. 1973); Evans v. Triple R Welding & Oil Field Maintenance Corp,, 472 F.2d 713, 716 (5th Cir. 1973).