Court Opinion

ID: 22108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 07:51:59+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:30.934276
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                             _____________________

                                  No. 00-60318
                                Summary Calendar
                             _____________________

      A.D. SUMMERS; HAZEL SUMMERS;
      RENEE SUMMERS; ALAN SUMMERS,

                                                   Plaintiffs-Appellants,

                                      versus

      CITY OF RAYMOND, MISSISSIPPI, Etc., ET AL.,

                                                   Defendants,

      CITY OF RAYMOND, MISSISSIPPI, a municipal corporation,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

          _______________________________________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court for
                       the Southern District of Mississippi
                          (USDC No. 3:99-CV-187-LN)
          _______________________________________________________
                                 October 2, 2000

Before REAVLEY, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

      *
        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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances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.
      The plaintiffs appeal the district court’s summary judgment for the defendant

City of Raymond. The plaintiffs claim that the City towed the plaintiffs’ cars when

they were parked along the street, but did not tow other cars parked along the same

street. They argue that this is a violation of their right to equal protection. We

agree with the district court, however, that the plaintiffs have not met their burden of

showing that other cars that were the subject of complaint were not towed.

Therefore, they cannot show that they were treated differently than similarly situated

persons, as is required under the Equal Protection Clause. See Village of

Willowbrook v. Olech, 120 S. Ct. 1073, 1074 (2000).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2