Case Name: Michael E. SPREADBURY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT of Health & Human Services; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-11
Citations: 465 F. App'x 728
Docket Number: No. 10-35901
Parties: Michael E. SPREADBURY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT of Health & Human Services; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 465
Pages: 728–728

Head Matter:
Michael E. SPREADBURY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT of Health & Human Services; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 10-35901.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
Filed Jan. 11, 2012.
Michael E. Spreadbury, Hamilton, MT, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Michael E. Spreadbury appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for lack of standing his action alleging that demolition and construction activities related to the Rocky Mountain Laboratories (the "Laboratories") in Hamilton, Montana violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. (the "Act"). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Spreadbury's action for failure to satisfy constitutional and prudential standing requirements. First, Spreadbury failed to describe how defendants' alleged construction activities in violation of the Act resulted in an injury to his personal, concrete interests. See Nuclear Info. & Res. Serv. v. NRC, 457 F.3d 941, 949-50 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth constitutional standing requirements). Second, Spreadbury failed to allege how defendants' alleged actions injured him within the zone of interests protected by the Act. See Ashley Creek Phosphate Co. v. Norton, 420 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir.2005) (setting forth prudential standing requirements).
Spreadbury's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.