Case Name: Daniel Lee JACKSON et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William DOBBS et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1971-03-30
Citations: 442 F.2d 928
Docket Number: No. 30266
Parties: Daniel Lee JACKSON et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William DOBBS et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 442
Pages: 928–928

Head Matter:
Daniel Lee JACKSON et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William DOBBS et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 30266.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 30, 1971.
Howard Moore, Jr., Peter E. Rinds-kopf, Atlanta, Ga., Jack Greenberg, Michael Meltsner, New York City, for appellants.
Lloyd Sutter, Atlanta, Ga., W. K. Campbell, Campbell & Campbell, Coving-ton, Ga., Gambrell, Russell, Moye & Kil-lorin, Atlanta, Ga., for appellees.
Before GEWIN, COLEMAN and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In this case against certain city officials of Covington, Georgia, appellants attack an ordinance of the city regulating parades, demonstrations, assemblies and picketing, under which they were arrested, and sought a temporary and preliminary injunction. After a hearing the Court denied appellants' motion for a temporary and preliminary injunction; the record before us does not indicate that the court dismissed the complaint.
We affirm the judgment of the district court denying injunctive relief and remand the case with direction to dismiss the complaint. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971); Boyle v. Landry, 401 U.S. 77, 91 S.Ct. 758, 27 L.Ed.2d 696 (1971); Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 91 S. Ct. 764, 27 L.Ed.2d 688 (1971); Dyson v. Stein, 401 U.S. 200, 91 S.Ct. 769, 27 L.Ed.2d 781 (1971); Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 91 S.Ct. 674, 27 L.Ed.2d 701 (1971); Byrne v. Karalexis, 401 U. S. 216, 91 S.Ct. 777, 27 L.Ed.2d 792 (1971). See also: Gordon v. Landrieu, 442 F.2d 926 (5th Cir. 1971); Gornto v. Thomas, et al., 439 F.2d- (5th Cir. 1971).
Affirmed and remanded with directions.