Court Opinion

ID: 8480366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-05 18:27:15.390295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:49:30.868468
License: Public Domain

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed May 4, 2010, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because appellant did not allege an injury- sufficient to confer Article III standing. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (in order to satisfy “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing,” plaintiff must have suffered an injury that is concrete and particularized, and actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.