Lansdale Automotive, et al v. Williamson County, e

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 99-50936
_____________________
LANSDALE AUTOMOTIVE, INC.;
JAY ALAN LANSDALE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
WILLIAMSON COUNTY; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY; ED RICHARDS, in his official capacity
and individually; JOHN CHANDLER, in his official
capacity and individually; MARIO OROZCO, in
his official capacity and individually; JOHN C.
DOERFLER, in his official capacity and individually,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(A-99-CV-499-JN)
_________________________________________________________________
June 26, 2000
Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Having heard oral argument, and based, in addition, upon our
review of the record and the briefs, we conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary
injunction at issue. Of course, in so holding, we do not express
an opinion on the merits of this action, including the underlying

-- 1 of 2 --

2
statutory issues.
The order denying preliminary injunctive relief, however, also
contains a sentence stating that Appellants’ application for a
permanent injunction is denied as “moot”. In the light of the
absence of any explanation for that statement, or any indication in
the record that the parties or district court intended that
resolution of the merits of the requested permanent injunction be
decided at, or based upon, the preliminary injunction hearing, we
are convinced that the district court did not intend to rule on the
merits of such permanent relief. Accordingly, we regard that
statement as inadvertent or unintended, having no effect on our
jurisdiction to review the denial of preliminary injunctive relief.
See United States v. Bayshore Associates, Inc., 934 F.2d 1391, 1395
(6th Cir. 1991) (treating order appealed as preliminary injunction
where district court “inartfully” characterized order as permanent
injunction).
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --