Plaintiff-Appellant Jimmie Vickers appeals the district court’s dismissal, for lack of standing, of his action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Affording his pro se brief the benefit of liberal construction, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), Vickers argues that he has standing to sue under RICO because the bodily injury he sustained ultimately caused economic damage to his corporation, Vickers Marine, Inc.

A RICO plaintiff “must establish that he has standing to sue.” Price v. Pinnacle *657 Brands, 138 F.3d 602, 606 (5th Cir. 1998). As there is no recovery under RICO for personal injuries, a plaintiff does not have standing to sue under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) based on such injuries. See id. at 607 n. 20. Here, any economic injury to Vickers’s corporation was the result of Vickers’s bodily injury. Thus, the district court did not err in dismissing his RICO action for lack of standing.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.