Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

David F. Leach v. Mediacom, 03-1447 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 03-1447 Visitors: 29
Filed: Jun. 28, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 03-1447 _ David F. Leach, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Mediacom, * * Appellee, * [PUBLISHED] * United States of America, * * Movant Below. * _ Submitted: December 10, 2003 Filed: June 28, 2004 _ Before RILEY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. David F. Leach appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his complaint, purportedly brought under the Ca
More
                    United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 03-1447
                                   ___________

David F. Leach,                         *
                                        *
            Appellant,                  *
                                        * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                * District Court for the
                                        * Southern District of Iowa.
Mediacom,                               *
                                        *
            Appellee,                   *      [PUBLISHED]
                                        *
United States of America,               *
                                        *
            Movant Below.               *
                                   ___________

                             Submitted: December 10, 2003
                                Filed: June 28, 2004
                                 ___________

Before RILEY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
                            ___________

PER CURIAM.

      David F. Leach appeals the district court’s1 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


      1
       The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern
District of Iowa.
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 (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.
                        ______________________________




                                         -2-

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer