Court Opinion

ID: 3161007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-12-09 01:00:46.87962+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:59:43.248704
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
  
   *
  

  The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the following reasons.
 

  Plaintiffs have not identified any due process right violated by the City. No objection is made to the No. 2012-8-16 ordinance itself. It limits to eight children the number cared for by the Plaintiffs. They were not entitled to care for 12 children because they had no permit. The City Council denied further action because “more than eight is simply too many.” The judgment of the district judge, based upon the explanations of the magistrate judge, is correct. Any pending motions are denied.
 

  AFFIRMED.
 

   *
  

   Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under • the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.