Patrick Bray v. Bank of America

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, James B. Loken and Duane Benton (UNPUBLISHED) [4462808] [16-1523]

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[Unpublished]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