Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 99-1542
COUNSEL
ARGUED: David Alan Wasserman, WASSERMAN & WALTERS,
Winter Park, Florida, for Appellants. Dorothy K. Woodward, Asso-
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Appellants Steakhouse and Investment Partners challenge the constitutionality of the City of Raleighs special use permit procedure for
adult establishments. This appeal is part of Steakhouses continuing
effort to erect a topless dancing bar in Raleigh. In 1999, after an
exhaustive review of the parties arguments and submissions, we held
that appellants had demonstrated little likelihood of prevailing on the
merits of their challenge. See Steakhouse, Inc. v. City of Raleigh, 166
F.3d 634 (4th Cir. 1999). Appellants have put forth nothing more that
persuades us that their claims have any merit. We therefore affirm the
judgment of the district court for the reasons stated in our earlier decision.
I.
The relevant facts of this case are set forth in our earlier opinion
affirming the district courts denial of a preliminary injunction. See
Steakhouse, 166 F.3d 634. At that stage of the case, we found, inter
alia, that the city has a legitimate interest in combating the secondary
effects of topless barroom dancing, see id. at 636-38, that Raleighs
special use permit scheme sufficiently cabins the Board of Adjustments discretion, see id. at 638-40, and that the city has provided
adequate procedural safeguards for the consideration of a permit
II.
The judgment of the district court is accordingly
AFFIRMED.