WMATA v. Fleischman

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA
TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a body
corporate,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JULIUS FLEISCHMAN,
No. 96-1868
Defendant-Appellant,

and

ONE PARCEL OF LAND IN PRINCE
GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND;
UNKNOWN OWNERS,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-95-2423)

Submitted: March 31, 1997

Decided: May 8, 1997

Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Theda Braddock, ZANECKI BRADDOCK & SILBER, P.C., Green-
belt, Maryland, for Appellant. Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney
General, Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, David C. Shil-
ton, Michael K. Baker, Douglas R. Wright, Robert H. Oakley,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Julius Fleischman owned a parcel of property in suburban Wash-
ington, D.C. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
("WMATA") filed a condemnation action against a portion of the
property for use in the construction of a new station for its Metro rail
system. Fleischman filed an amended answer raising five affirmative
defenses. WMATA filed a motion to strike all five affirmative
defenses, and Fleischman filed a cross-motion for injunctive relief.
After conducting a de novo review, the district court adopted the mag-
istrate judge's recommendation that WMATA's motion be granted
and Fleischman's be denied. On appeal, Fleischman challenges the
striking of his affirmative defense asserting that inadequacies in an
environmental impact statement ("EIS") rendered the condemnation
action arbitrary and capricious, causing the condemnation to lack a
public purpose. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the order of the
district court.

It is undisputed that this court reviews a condemnation proceeding
only to determine whether the purpose for which the property was
condemned was for a congressionally authorized public use. United
States ex rel. Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Welch, 327 U.S. 546, 551-52
(1946). Here, the purpose of the condemnation was to secure property
for the building of parking facilities for a new Metro rail station, and
we find that this satisfies the requirements in Welch.

2
We find that Fleischman's assertion that failure to prepare an ade-
quate EIS causes WMATA's action to exceed its congressional
authority to be without merit. The National Environmental Policy Act
("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C) (1994), requires all federal agen-
cies to prepare an EIS addressing the impact on the quality of the
human environment prior to embarking on any major project. Failure
to prepare an EIS is not an affirmative defense to a condemnation
action. United States v. 178.15 Acres of Land , 543 F.2d 1391 (4th Cir.
1976); see also United States v. 0.95 Acres of Land, 994 F.2d 696,
699 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. 255.25 Acres of Land, 553 F.2d
571, 572 n.2 (8th Cir. 1977). We adopt the reasoning in 0.95 Acres
of Land that a condemnation action is merely a transfer of legal title
with no environmental impact. Id. at 699.

We therefore affirm the order of the district court. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3