Patrick Bray v. Bank of America


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, James B. Loken and Duane Benton (UNPUBLISHED) [4462808] [16-1523]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-1523 ___________________________ Patrick Ryan Bray lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Bank of America lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: October 25, 2016 Filed: October 26, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Patrick Bray appeals the district court’s1 order dismissing his claim under 12 U.S.C. § 1972, the Bank Holding Company Act. Having jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. 1 The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. Appellate Case: 16-1523 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2016 Entry ID: 4462808 Bray asserted violations of anti-tying provisions of the BHCA, which the district court properly dismissed for lack of standing because Bray failed to allege sufficiently that his injury was caused by a violation of the Act. See Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377, 1386-90 (2014) (to determine standing, court first determines whether plaintiff has established requirements of constitutional standing; and if so then examines whether statutory standing exists by determining if plaintiff’s allegations establish that his interests were within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked, and that his injuries were proximately caused by violations of the statute); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (to establish Article III standing, plaintiff must allege, inter alia, that injury is causally connected to defendant’s allegedly illegal conduct and not to independent action of some third party not before court); Wieland v. U.S. Dep’t Health & Human Servs., 793 F.3d 949, 953-54 (8th Cir. 2015) (appellate court reviews district court’s dismissal for lack of standing de novo, accepting as true all factual allegations in complaint and drawing reasonable inferences in favor of nonmoving party; standing exists only if plaintiff suffered injury as result of defendant’s putatively illegal conduct). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 16-1523 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2016 Entry ID: 4462808

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?