                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       for the Fifth Circuit

               _____________________________________

                            No. 97-10004
                          Summary Calendar
               _____________________________________



                    MAYFAIR DEVELOPMENT CORP.,

                                              Plaintiff-Appellant,

                              VERSUS


                          CITY OF DALLAS,
                                                 Defendant-Appellee.

     ______________________________________________________

          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Northern District of Texas
                        (3:95-CV-1594-H)
     ______________________________________________________
                          July 17, 1997

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:1

     Mayfair appeals the district court’s order granting summary

judgment for the City of Dallas.   Mayfair contends that the City

acted arbitrarily and capriciously in rejecting a development plan

submitted by Mayfair’s assignee and that the City’s rejection

violated the due process, equal protection, and takings clauses of



     1
          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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
the Texas and U.S. Constitutions and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.                       We

disagree.

     This court has explained that municipal zoning decisions are

“sustainable against a substantive due process challenge if there

exists . . . ‘any conceivable rational basis’” for the decision.

FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 93 F.3d 167, 174

(5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Shelton v. City of College Station, 780

F.2d 475, 477 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 477 U.S. 905

(1986)).    “Only if such government action is ‘clearly arbitrary

and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public

health, safety, morals, or general welfare,’ may it be declared

unconstitutional.” Id. (quoting Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty

Co., 272 U.S. 365, 395 (1926)).         Here, the City Council furnished

a number of reasons for its rejection of the development plan;

given the presumption of validity we accord such findings, we

cannot   conclude   that   the   City       Council   lacked   a   “conceivable

rational basis” for its action.         Therefore, we must conclude that

Mayfair has failed to state a constitutional violation, and the

district court’s order is affirmed.

     AFFIRMED.




                                        2
