Case Name: David F. LEACH, Appellant, v. MEDIACOM, Appellee, United States of America, Movant Below
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-28
Citations: 373 F.3d 895
Docket Number: No. 03-1447
Parties: David F. LEACH, Appellant, v. MEDIACOM, Appellee, United States of America, Movant Below.
Judges: Before RILEY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 373
Pages: 895–896

Head Matter:
David F. LEACH, Appellant, v. MEDIACOM, Appellee, United States of America, Movant Below.
No. 03-1447.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 10, 2003.
Filed: June 28, 2004.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Aug. 9, 2004.
David F. Leach, Des Moines, IA, pro se.
Michael A. Giudicessi and William J. Hunnicutt, argued, Des Moines, IA, for appellee.
Before RILEY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Judge Melloy and Judge Colloton did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
David F. Leach appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaint, purportedly brought under the Cable Communications Policy Act. See 47 U.S.C. § 521 et seq. Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree with the district court that there is no implied private right of action under 47 U.S.C. § 531(e), as Congress expressly gave the franchiser enforcement authority. See Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 290, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001) ("The express provision of one method of enforcing a substantive rule suggests that Congress intended to preclude others.") Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United Stales District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.