Court Opinion

ID: 20684
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 07:36:37+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:41.671808
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                     _______________________

                           No. 99-60499
                         Summary Calendar
                     _______________________

DAVID RICHARDSON; ET AL.,

                                                        Plaintiffs,

DAVID RICHARDSON, doing
business as D and B Partnership

                                               Plaintiff-Appellant,

                               versus

BRUCE BABBIT, Secretary, United States
Department of the Interior, National
Park Service,

                                               Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
             for the Northern District of Mississippi
                      USDC No. 1:98-CV-25-D-D
_________________________________________________________________

                            April 4, 2000

Before JONES, SMITH and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

          David and Barbara Richardson, doing business as D & B

Partnership, appeal the dismissal of their complaint which

challenged the National Park Service’s denial of their request for

certification of historic significance of the Hahan-Richardson

     *
      Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Building in Columbus, Mississippi.          The decision of the National

Park Service was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of decision,

or otherwise not in accordance with the law.        5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A);

Texas Oil and Gas Ass’n v. EPA, 161 F.3d 923, 933 (5th Cir. 1998).

            In particular, the appeal decision noted and photos in

the record confirm that the building was a gutted shell lacking a

roof and all the interior when the Richardsons purchased it.               The

front facade had lost its original windows.                Whether such a

structure should be certified raises a question of professional

judgment informed by the NPS’s expertise, an expertise this court

lacks.   There is a reasonable basis for the Secretary’s decision,

and we will not disturb it.

            Accordingly,   the   judgment    of   the   district   court   is

AFFIRMED.

                                    2