David F. Leach v. Mediacom, United States of America, Movant Below

Eighth Circuit

David F. Leach v. Mediacom, United States of America, Movant Below

373 F.3d 895

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 9, 2004

Docket03-1447

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 373 F.3d 895 (David F. Leach v. Mediacom, United States of America, Movant Below) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

David F. Leach v. Mediacom, United States of America, Movant Below, 373 F.3d 895 (8th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

David F. Leach appeals the district court’s 1 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 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, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (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.

1

. The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United Stales District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

David F. Leach appeals the district court’s 1 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 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, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (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.

1

. The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United Stales District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

373 F.3d 895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-f-leach-v-mediacom-united-states-of-america-movant-below-ca8-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack