U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2000

Richardson v. Babbit

Richardson v. Babbit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided April 5, 2000

Richardson v. Babbit

Opinion

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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.