JUDGMENT
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and supplements filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district courts order filed November 16, 2020, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because appellant failed to identify an injury particularized to himself that is sufficient to establish his standing to sue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 573-74, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (“[A] plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government – claiming only harm to his and every citizens interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large – does not state an Article III case or controversy.”).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
Per Curiam