Goshen Road Environ v. US Dept Agriculture ( 1996 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
GOSHEN ROAD ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION TEAM, a community
organization; IRIS BROWN; HATTIE
BROWN,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE; UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
No. 95-3102
Secretary; RURAL HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICE;
RURAL HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICE,
Administrator; NORTH CAROLINA
STATE DIRECTOR, Rural Housing and
Community Development Service;
TOWN OF POLLOCKSVILLE,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville.
Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge.
(CA-95-36-4-H-1)
Argued: October 30, 1996
Decided: December 16, 1996
Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and LUTTIG,
Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Eleanette Maccene Brown, Land Loss Prevention Project,
NCCU LAW SCHOOL, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellants.
Barbara Dickerson Kocher, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh,
North Carolina; Clare Lynn Brock, WOOTEN & BROCK, P.L.L.C.,
Trenton, North Carolina, for Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs, Goshen Road Environmental Action Team and two resi-
dents of the Goshen Road community, moved in the district court for
a preliminary injunction closing the Town of Pollocksville's waste
water and sewage treatment facility during the pendency of their suit
for declaratory relief and permanent injunctive relief. Plaintiffs allege
that the facility was constructed in the Goshen Road community
because it is a predominantly black neighborhood, in violation of
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that the defendants vio-
lated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C.
§ 4332(2)(c). Plaintiffs argued, inter alia, that a preliminary injunc-
tion against further operation of the currently-operating facility is nec-
essary because the lagoon and spray fields associated with the facility
will blight the community and adversely affect the residents, and that
the facility will adversely affect historical and cultural preservation
interests. The defendants argued that they are on a timetable for
repayment of loan monies for the facility and that a preliminary
injunction would cause them to default on their loan and abandon the
project. J.A. at 187-88.
2
The district court concluded that the alleged injury to the plaintiffs
would not be irreparable, that an injunction would substantially harm
the defendants and other interested parties, and that keeping the facil-
ity operational pending resolution of the case would not permanently
damage the public interest. Accordingly, the district court denied the
motion for preliminary injunction. J.A. at 189-90.
We have read the briefs, heard oral argument, and carefully consid-
ered the parties' contentions. For the reasons stated by the district
court, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
3