SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Adar 980 Realty, LLC appeals from: (1) the May 20, 2014 order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Ross, J.) denying Adar 980’s motion to correct the record on appeal for appeals taken from the March 13, 2014 decision and order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York (Craig, B.J.) to the district court; and (2) the August 5, 2014 opinion and order of the same district court (a) affirming the order of the same bankruptcy court dismissing the adversary proceeding seeking contempt and other associated relief on the ground that Adar 980 lacked prudential standing; and (b) declining to consider Adar 980’s motion to convert a March 13, 2014 so-ordered dismissal with prejudice filed in an adversary proceeding below into a dismissal without prejudice. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

We affirm for the reasons set out in the thorough opinions of the bankruptcy and district courts below. Prudential standing remains a jurisdictional requirement in our Circuit. See Thompson v. Cty. of Franklin, 15 F.3d 245, 248 (2d Cir. 1994). No subsequent precedent of the Supreme Court requires us to reconsider that holding. “The prudential standing rule nor *93 mally bars litigants from asserting the rights or legal interests of others in order to obtain relief from injury to themselves.” Rajamin v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 757 F.3d 79, 86 (2d Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). “[T]he plaintiff generally must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). As the bankruptcy court determined, Adar 980 failed to demonstrate a particularized injury sufficient to demonstrate prudential standing. See, e.g., In re Ampal-Am. Israel Corp., 502 B.R. 361, 368-73 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 2013).

We have considered the remainder of Adar 980’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the orders of the district court hereby are AFFIRMED.