U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 2004

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

David F. Leach v. Mediacom, United States of America, Movant Below
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Decided August 9, 2004 · Riley, Hansen, Smith
373 F.3d 895 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

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

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.