BREWERY DISTRICT SOCIETY, DENNISON PLACE ASSOCIATION, and MALCOLM COCHRANE v. Federal Highway Administration

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 05a0841n.06
Filed: October 12, 2005
03-4561
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
BREWERY DISTRICT SOCIETY,
DENNISON PLACE ASSOCIATION, and
MALCOLM COCHRANE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Before: DAUGHTREY, MOORE, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. The action giving rise to this appeal was filed in district court by a
coalition of preservationists who sought to prevent demolition of the historic Ohio State
Penitentiary in downtown Columbus and, having failed in that endeavor, now seek “an
appropriate mitigation alternative for the adverse impacts upon the site” of the demolition.
The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), had
violated a federal statute requiring federal construction projects to include measures to
preserve sites of historical significance by allowing the City of Columbus to “de-federalize”
a construction project (the “B-4 connector”) related to a long-term federal highway
construction program (the Spring/Sandusky Interchange Project or “SSI Project”) and to

-- 1 of 4 --

03-4561
Brewery District Society v. FHWA
- 2 -
proceed with alternative, non-federal construction that led to the razing of at least part of
the state’s original penitentiary buildings. After the plaintiffs presented their evidence at
trial, the district court dismissed the case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(c), holding that “the
plaintiffs ha[d] failed to prove an essential element of the case, that is that B-4 was not
separate and independent (from the federally-funded SSI Project).”
We review facts found by the district court as a basis for dismissal pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 52(c) for clear error. The district court’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo.
See Sharp ex rel. Estate of Sharp v. United States, 401 F.3d 440, 442 (6th Cir. 2005).
“Clear error will be found only where the reviewing court is left with the definite, firm
conviction that a mistake has been made. The issue is not whether the district court
reached the best conclusion, but whether the evidence before the court supports the district
court’s findings. Also, the district court’s findings based on the credibility of the witnesses
before it are entitled to great deference on appeal.” Isabel v. City of Memphis, 404 F.3d
404, 411 (6th Cir. 2005).
Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having studied the record on appeal
and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in dismissing
the complaint. The record indicates that the SSI Project was intended to complete and
upgrade I-670 at its intersection with State Route 315 in downtown Columbus.
Independent of that federally funded program, the city proposed a project designed to
improve traffic flow in the general area of the SSI Project. The design originally included

-- 2 of 4 --

03-4561
Brewery District Society v. FHWA
- 3 -
the construction of a local road connecting Neil Avenue and Nationwide Boulevard near
Front Street and was designated B-4 on project maps. The defendant’s exhibits indicate
that despite the appearance of the B-4 connector on SSI Project maps, it was never
considered part of the larger construction program and was subject to a different
environmental assessment process than that undergone by the proposed SSI construction.
Apparently, the city had received federal funds for the B-4 connector from a source
other than the SSI Project funding and in 1997, when the city initiated a new plan for the
development of an arena in the same vicinity, it cancelled the B-4 connector project and
returned the federal funds. As part of the arena development, another plan for dealing with
local traffic was designed that necessitated the demolition of some of the penitentiary
buildings, leading to the filing of this action. In their original complaint, the plaintiffs
contended that the B-4 connector had been improperly segmented out of the SSI Project
and that the replacement project, even though not part of the federally-funded construction,
constituted an “end run” around the environmental review procedures applicable to federal
highway construction such as the SSI Project. After the city razed the buildings at issue
in this case, the plaintiffs supplemented their complaint, contending that the FHWA should
be held responsible for mitigating the effects of the demolition of the penitentiary buildings.
However, there was no proof that the B-4 connector was ever part of the SSI
Project, nor – as the district court found – could the later replacement construction, locally

-- 3 of 4 --

03-4561
Brewery District Society v. FHWA
- 4 -
initiated and financed, be considered a federal project “merely because it will relieve some
of the same congestion that B-4 would have.”
For the reasons set out above, as well as those articulated by the district judge in
granting the defendants’ Rule 52 motion, we find no clear error and, therefore, AFFIRM the
judgment of the district court.

-- 4 of 4 --