Glen Sumner v. Board of Adjustment , 637 F. App'x 841 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 15-20399      Document: 00513402332         Page: 1    Date Filed: 03/01/2016
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-20399                         United States Court of Appeals
    Summary Calendar                                Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    March 1, 2016
    GLEN SUMNER,                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    Plaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF SPRING VALLEY VILLAGE,
    TEXAS; CITY OF SPRING VALLEY VILLAGE, TEXAS; ART FLORES,
    Defendants - Appellees
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:15-CV-244
    Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Glen Sumner appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action,
    stemming from the alleged eroding of his property due to the actions of his
    neighbor and the City of Spring Valley Village, Texas. In the district court,
    Sumner asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his procedural
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
    Case: 15-20399    Document: 00513402332      Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/01/2016
    No. 15-20399
    due process rights, and further sought a declaratory judgment that the
    certificate of occupancy issued by the city to his neighbor be withdrawn.
    Sumner first urges this court to find that the district court erred in ruling
    that he failed to state a protected property or liberty interest to support his
    procedural due process claim. He further contends that the district court’s
    determination that his declaratory judgment claim was unsupported by an
    independent basis for federal jurisdiction was also error.
    This court has considered this appeal on the basis of the briefs, the
    pertinent portions of the record, and the applicable law. Having done so, the
    judgment is affirmed, essentially for the reasons stated in the Order of the
    district court.
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-20399

Citation Numbers: 637 F. App'x 841

Judges: Davis, Graves, Jones, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 3/1/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024