UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-60238

Summary Calendar

MERAMEC SPECIALTY CO.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

V.

CITY OF SOUTHAVEN, MISSISSIPPI,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi 2:98-CV-171 September 14, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and PARKER Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

Meramec Specialty Co. (“Meramec”), a Missouri corporation with

its principal offices in Arkansas, sold fireworks on leased land

in DeSoto County, Mississippi from 1989-1997. When the City of

Southaven, Mississippi (“Southaven”) annexed the land in 1997, the

* 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. land fell under an ordinance prohibiting firework sales within the

city limits except by special permit. Southaven’s Board of

Aldermen passed a resolution “grandfathering in” all the firework

businesses that operated before the annexation. Southaven’s Mayor,

however, vetoed the resolution. As a result, Southaven refused to

issue the special permit. Meramec challenged Southaven’s

enforcement of the mayor’s veto as arbitrary and capricious and in

contravention with its non-conforming use. In response, Southaven

filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court granted

the motion for summary judgment and dismissed all Meramec’s claims

with prejudice.

The district court granted Southaven’s motion for summary

judgment for several reasons. First, the court held that where a

municipality annexes land, enforcement of a pre-existing ordinance

does not violate any property right, especially regarding rights

that were based on a revocable permit. See Davidson v. City of

Clinton,

(5th Cir. 1987); Miller v. Board of

Supervisors of Forest County,

,

(1957).

Also, under such enforcement, a property owner cannot resort to the

doctrine of non-conforming use to continue activity proscribed by

annexing authority. See Davidson,

. Next, the

court held that since the sale of fireworks is related to public

health, safety, and general welfare for which municipal police

powers are granted, there can be no evidence of arbitrariness.

Finally, the court found that the Board of Alderman’s proposed resolution fell within the statutory definition of ordinance, and

thus was subject to veto by the Mayor.**

Meramec now claims that it is entitled to just compensation

for the taking of its alleged property rights. Since a license to

sell fireworks is simply a revocable permit or alienable privilege,

Meramec does not have a vested property right, and thus does not

have a takings claim. Therefore, Meramec’s just compensation claim

is without merit.

We agree with the district court’s judgment, and find no merit

in Meramec’s just compensation claim. Therefore, we AFFIRM.

AFFIRMED.

** The statute regarding the mayor’s vetoing powers defines “ordinance” to include resolutions and orders. See MISS. CODE ANN. § 21-3-15 (1972).