MEMORANDUM **

Roland Cooke appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of standing his action alleging that the defendants “confiscated the homes and property of 20,000-70,000 people in Utah, Arizona and Canada.” We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Wilson v. Kayo Oil Co., 563 F.3d 979, 980 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action for lack of standing because Cooke failed to allege any particularized injury to him that was fairly traceable to the defendants. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (standing under Article III requires a plaintiff to show that he suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete, particularized, and fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant).

AFFIRMED.