Case Name: Andrew RIGGLE Plaintiff-Appellant v. VALERO; American Enterprise Property; Does 1-5 Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-14
Citations: 682 F. App'x 537
Docket Number: No. 16-3196
Parties: Andrew RIGGLE Plaintiff-Appellant v. VALERO; American Enterprise Property; Does 1-5 Defendants-Appellees
Judges: Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 682
Pages: 537–537

Head Matter:
Andrew RIGGLE Plaintiff-Appellant v. VALERO; American Enterprise Property; Does 1-5 Defendants-Appellees
No. 16-3196
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: April 11, 2017
Filed: April 14, 2017
William Robert Harris, Jr., Harris Law Office, Omaha, NE, Judith Ann Wells, Law Office of Judith A. Wells, Omaha, NE, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Kramer L. Lyons, O’Neill & Heinrich, Lincoln, NE, for Defendants-Appellees Va-lero, Does 1-5
Kramer L. Lyons, Adam Prochaska, O’Neill & Heinrich, Lincoln, NE, for De~ fendant-Appellee American Enterprise Property
Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Andrew Riggle appeals the district court's dismissal with prejudice, for lack of standing, of his complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (ADA). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms, but modifies the dismissal to be without prejudice. See Cty. of Mille Lacs v. Benjamin, 361 F.3d 460, 464-65 (8th Cir. 2004) (modifying judgment to be without prejudice because dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was not adjudication on merits).
This court agrees that Riggle lacked standing to bring an ADA claim because he did not show how the challenged conduct injured him personally, based.on his alleged disability. See Steger v. Franco, Inc., 228 F.3d 889, 892 (8th Cir. 2000) (Article III standing requires plaintiff to show (1) injury-in-fact, (2) causal relationship between injury and challenged conduct, and (3) that injury likely would be redressed by favorable decision; injury-in-fact is harm that is concrete and particularized, or actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical).
The judgment is affirmed, but the dismissal is modified to be without prejudice. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.