Case Name: David M. VAN HORN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF TEMECULA, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-11
Citations: 52 F. App'x 957
Docket Number: No. 02-55353; D.C. No. CV-01-00422-SGL
Parties: David M. VAN HORN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF TEMECULA, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 52
Pages: 957–957

Head Matter:
David M. VAN HORN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF TEMECULA, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 02-55353.
D.C. No. CV-01-00422-SGL.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 2, 2002.
Decided Dec. 11, 2002.
Before GOODWIN, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
David M. Van Horn appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing his action challenging certain conditions the City of Temecula imposed on archaeological research at a construction development site. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Van Horn's action for lack of standing because Van Horn's factual allegations failed to demonstrate an actual injury or real and immediate threat of future harm. See San Diego County Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir.1996).
Van Horn's request for judicial notice is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.