Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

373 F.3d 895

Docket No. 03-1447.

Leach v. Mediacom

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted: Dec. 10, 2003.

Filed: June 28, 2004.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Aug. 9, 2004.*

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 2004-06-28

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 2014

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

2 counsel of record

Applies 47 U.S.C. § 521 · 47 U.S.C. § 531

Relies on Alexander v. Sandoval

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 2004-06-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*896David F. Leach, Des Moines, IA, pro se.

¶2Michael A. Giudicessi and William J. Hunnicutt, argued, Des Moines, IA, for appellee.

¶3Before RILEY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6David F. Leach appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his complaint, purportedly brought under the Cable Communications Policy Act. See 47 U.S.C. § 521et 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.

/373/f3d/895 · .json · Public domain