Summary
holding that 7 U.S.C. § 1785, which contains identical language, precludes review of agency findings of fact
Summary of this case from United States v. BatsonOpinion
No. 72-2115. Summary Calendar.
Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409.
October 17, 1972.
C.O. McMillan, Stephenville, Tex., W.V. Dunnam, Jr., Waco, Tex., for defendants-appellants.
William S. Sessions, U.S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., Morton Hollander, Thomas G. Wilson, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Before THORNBERRY, COLEMAN and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.
Appellants were sued by the United States to recover incentive payments made under the National Wool Act of 1954, 7 U.S.C. § 1781 et seq. The government filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of an administrative record compiled by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committee in its determination that the appellants were not entitled to the incentive payments and must therefore repay them. See 7 CFR 780.4 and 780.5. The district court granted the motion and entered judgment against James W. Blackwell for $43,454.25 and against Everett Blackwell for $19,158.29. The Blackwells appealed.
The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committee's fact findings made pursuant to the Secretary of Agriculture's regulations were "final and conclusive," 7 U.S.C.A. § 1785, and not subject to review in the federal courts. The government pleaded the Committee's findings, and defendants did not dispute that they were the Committee's findings. Hence, no issue as to material fact cognizable in the district court existed, and summary judgment was proper. F.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
See Dickson v. Edward, 5th Cir. en banc 1961, 293 F.2d 211 and Caulfield v. United States Department of Agriculture, 5th Cir. en banc 1961, 293 F.2d 217, which considered the effect of an identical "final and conclusive" provision in the Soil Bank Act, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1809.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.