Case Name: GARBO, INC., a Florida corporation, Gary Miceli, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF KEY WEST, FLORIDA, of the State of Florida, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-17
Citations: 162 F. App'x 905
Docket Number: No. 05-12415; D.C. Docket No. 05-10006-CV-JLK
Parties: GARBO, INC., a Florida corporation, Gary Miceli, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF KEY WEST, FLORIDA, of the State of Florida, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and COX, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 162
Pages: 905–906

Head Matter:
GARBO, INC., a Florida corporation, Gary Miceli, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF KEY WEST, FLORIDA, of the State of Florida, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 05-12415
Non-Argument Calendar.
D.C. Docket No. 05-10006-CV-JLK.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Jan. 17, 2006.
Steven Forrest Jackson, Sandra Salter Jackson, Law Offices of Steven F. Jackson, Bayside, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Michael T. Burke, Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & McDuff, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and COX, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs Garbo, Inc. and Gary Miceli appeal the judgment of the district court dismissing with prejudice the entirety of their complaint against the City of Key West, Florida. Having considered the briefs and relevant parts of the record, we agree with the district court that the complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiffs do not properly plead a cause of action for violation of their substantive due process rights. See Greenbriar Village, L.L.C. v. Mountain Brook, City, 345 F.3d 1258, 1262-63 (11th Cir.2003). Neither can they maintain a claim for violation of the Fifth Amendment because they did not pursue their remedies under Florida law before bringing this action. Williamson Co. Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985).
The state law tort claim asserted by Plaintiffs was properly dismissed pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Finally, the Plaintiffs' argument that the district court erroneously dismissed their state law inverse condemnation claim is meritless because the complaint includes no such claim.
The judgment of the district court is, therefore,
AFFIRMED.