concluding that "the naked assertion of a desire to return to a defendant establishment for the sole purpose of confirming ADA-compliance, without more, is insufficient to establish standing."Summary of this case from Crawford v. Hinds Cnty.
Thomas B. Bacon, THOMAS B. BACON, PA, Cooper City, Florida; Christopher D. Lane, Clemmons, North Carolina, for Appellant. G. Bryan Adams, III, Philip M. Van Hoy, VAN HOY, REUTLINGER, ADAMS & DUNN, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:10-cv-00210-FDW-DSC) Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas B. Bacon, THOMAS B. BACON, PA, Cooper City, Florida; Christopher D. Lane, Clemmons, North Carolina, for Appellant. G. Bryan Adams, III, Philip M. Van Hoy, VAN HOY, REUTLINGER, ADAMS & DUNN, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
William Norkunas appeals the district court's order dismissing for lack of standing his claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189 (2006). We have carefully reviewed the parties' briefs and the joint appendix and find no legal or factual basis to reverse the district court's conclusion that Norkunas failed to plead facts sufficient to state an actual or imminent injury or to question in this case the court's refusal to broaden the bases for Article III standing. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Norkunas v. Park Road Shopping Ctr., Inc., No. 3:10-cv-00210-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C. Apr. 15, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.