ZAORSKI v. GOVERNMENT OF UNITED STATES (2019)

Lan Lin Zaorski appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice her civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court's conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the suit, as Zaorski failed to establish standing to raise her claims.^* See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547-48, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016) (describing injury-in-fact requirement); Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (discussing elements of standing); see also Myers v. Loudoun Cty. Pub. Sch., 418 F.3d 395, 400 (4th Cir. 2005) (“The right to litigate for oneself ․ does not create a coordinate right to litigate for others.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   Insofar as Zaorski alleges that the district court was biased in favor of the Government in resolving her suit, we find her allegations wholly unsupported by the record. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”).

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.