Clark v. Dept of the Army ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50258
Summary Calendar
LONNIE D. CLARK; ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
KARLA ROLEN CLARK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; U.S. ARMY
ENGINEER DISTRICT; FORT WORTH MID-BRAZOS
PROJECT; LOUIS A. BRUNETT, Reservoir
Manager; UNKNOWN GOVERNMENT AGENTS,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-99-CV-20
- - - - - - - - - -
November 27, 2000
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Karla Rolen Clark appeals from the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of the defendants in her civil rights
complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). She argues that
the above-named defendants-appellees conspired to deprive her of
her due process and equal protection rights by threatening to
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 00-50258
-2-
revoke her boathouse permit. She also argues that the Army Corp of
Engineers’ regulations governing boathouse permits violates the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Finally, Clark asserts that
the district court erred by denying her motion to have an
independent arbitrator appointed to settle the dispute over the
permit.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and
we find no reversible error. Clark’s due process, equal
protection, and ADA claims are without merit. See Augustine v.
Doe, 740 F.2d 322, 327 (5th Cir. 1984); Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d
1527, 1533 (5th Cir. 1994). Additionally, Clark has failed to show
that the district court erred by denying her request for the
appointment of an arbitrator. See United Steel Workers of Am. v.
Am. Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582 (1960). The district court’s
judgment is AFFIRMED.