Richard C. Angino; Alice K. Angino; King Drive Corp. v. J. Thomas Van Wagner

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 02-2060
RICHARD C. ANGINO; ALICE K. ANGINO;
KING DRIVE CORP.,
Appellants
v.
J. THOMAS VAN WAGNER; JEFFREY SMITH; RICHARD PEFFER,
Individually and as Supervisors of Middle Paxton Township;
MIDDLE PAXTON TOWNSHIP; JEFFREY A. ERNICO; MARY JANE DAVIS,
Individually and as Middle Paxton Township Codes Enforcement
Officer; LIGHT-HEIGEL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 00-cv-00086)
District Court Judge: Honorable A. Richard Caputo
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
on December 16, 2002
Before: SLOVITER, RENDELL and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Filed December 17, 2002)
OPINION OF THE COURT
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Richard C. Angino, Alice K. Angino, and King Drive Corporation (together “the

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Anginos”) brought this action against J. Thomas Van Wagner, Jeffery Smith, Richard
Peffer, Middle Paxton Township, Jeffrey A. Ernico, Mette, Evans and Woodside, P.C.,
Mary Jane Davis, and Light-Heigel & Associates, Inc. (together “Defendants”) pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their civil rights. The District Court, exercising
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, entered summary judgment in favor of all the
Defendants. The Anginos now appeal.
We have jurisdiction to consider this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is
plenary and we review the facts in the light most favorable to the party against whom
summary judgment was entered. Bailey v. United Airlines, 279 F.3d 194, 198 (3d Cir.
2002).
The Anginos contend that the enactment and interpretation of various land-use
regulations in Middle Paxton Township deprived them of their constitutionally protected
rights. Inasmuch as we write only for the parties, we will not further detail the factual
background of the litigation. The District Court entered summary judgment without
prejudice against the Anginos because they failed to avail themselves of available state
procedures for challenging Defendants’ alleged actions and their failure to do so rendered
the claim not ripe for adjudication. In its memorandum opinion of April 4, 2002, the
District Court engaged in a thoughtful analysis and, after conducting a careful review of the
record in this case, we find no fault with its reasoning or its ruling. Accordingly, we will
affirm.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
_________________________
TO THE CLERK OF COURT:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/ Marjorie O. Rendell
Circuit Judge
Dated: December 17, 2002

-- 3 of 3 --