Merritt Boulevard, Inc. v. Department of Permits & Development Management , 60 F. App'x 944 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                          UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    THE MERRITT BOULEVARD,                     
    INCORPORATED; 5648 SOUTHWESTERN
    BOULEVARD, LLC
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    v.
    DEPARTMENT OF PERMITS &                       No. 02-2277
    DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT OF
    BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND;
    BOARD OF APPEALS OF BALTIMORE
    COUNTY,
    Defendants-Appellees.      
    710 MERRITT BOULEVARD, LLC, a/k/a          
    Love Craft; 5648 SOUTHWESTERN
    BOULEVARD, LLC,
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    v.
    RAYMOND S. WISNOM, JR., Code
    Inspections and Enforcement
    Supervisor, Department of Permits &
    Development Management of
    Baltimore County; DAVID J. TAYLOR;            No. 02-2278
    MARK F. GAWEL, Code Enforcement
    Inspectors, Department of Permits &
    Development Management of
    Baltimore County; EDWARD BRADDY,
    Code Enforcement Officers,
    Department of Permits &
    Development Management of
    Baltimore County,
    Defendants-Appellees.      
    2            THE MERRITT BOULEVARD v. DEPT     OF   PERMITS
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge.
    (CA-02-2877-S, CA-02-2878-S)
    Submitted: April 15, 2003
    Decided: April 22, 2003
    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Howard J. Schulman, SCHULMAN & KAUFMAN, L.L.C., Balti-
    more, Maryland, for Appellants. Edward J. Gilliss, County Attorney,
    John E. Beverungen, Deputy County Attorney, Jeffrey G. Cook,
    Assistant County Attorney, Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellants, The Merritt Boulevard, Inc., 710 Merritt Boulevard,
    LLC, and 5648 Southwestern Boulevard, LLC, appeal the district
    court’s orders denying their motions to remand their cases to state
    court and dismissing their civil actions as to their federal claims for
    failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Finding
    no error, we affirm.
    THE MERRITT BOULEVARD v. DEPT      OF   PERMITS           3
    Appellants first contend the district court erred by denying their
    motions to remand the actions to state court. In reviewing the denial
    of a motion to remand, the appellate court considers the complaint at
    the time of removal to determine if removal was appropriate in the
    first place. Ahearn v. Charter Township of Bloomfield, 
    100 F.3d 451
    ,
    453 (6th Cir. 1996); Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 
    31 F.3d 1092
    , 1097
    n.13 (11th Cir. 1994); Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 
    305 U.S. 534
    , 537
    (1939). At the time the Appellees removed this action to federal court,
    Appellants asserted claims under the United States Constitution.
    Thus, there was federal subject matter jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1331
     (1994) and removal was appropriate.
    Appellants next contend the district court erred by relying on an
    unpublished decision of this court and on the doctrines of res judicata
    and collateral estoppel in dismissing one of their claims. This conten-
    tion is without merit. The district court relied on its own precedent in
    deciding this case. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, the district
    court’s reliance was quite proper, even though we affirmed that prece-
    dent in an unpublished opinion.
    Finally, Appellants contend the district court erred by granting the
    Appellees’ motions to dismiss their civil actions as to their remaining
    federal claim for failure to state a claim. This Court reviews a district
    court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which
    relief may be granted de novo. Flood v. New Hanover County, 
    125 F.3d 249
    , 251 (4th Cir. 1997). In considering a motion to dismiss, this
    Court should accept the complainant’s well-pleaded allegations as
    true and view the complaint in the light most favorable to the non-
    moving party. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 
    7 F.3d 1130
    , 1134 (4th
    Cir. 1993). We find the district court properly dismissed this claim
    pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Appellants’
    remand motions. We further affirm the district court’s order granting
    Appellees’ motions to dismiss. We dispense with oral argument
    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
    materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED