|DAVID K. HOEL,
DONALD B. ATKINS; T. BRETT SWAB; TODD W. SINGER; DAN MURDOCK; LAWRENCE A.G. JOHNSON; BROWN J. AKIN, III; LAURIE E. AKIN; J. PETER MESSLER; BRADFORD GRIFFITH,
Plaintiff appeals from the district court's dismissal of his complaint alleging defendants are liable under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm.
The district court determined that plaintiff failed to allege interstate effects sufficient to support a RICO claim, as he alleged in his complaint: "The impact of [defendants'] schemes and activities occurred in Oklahoma. The participants in this enterprise are residents of Oklahoma." See Appellees' Joint Supp'l App. at 79-80; see also Appellant's App. at 3; 18 U.S.C. § 1962. We have carefully reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal. We affirm for substantially the same reasons as those set forth in the district court's order filed December 6, 1996.
Entered for the Court
Robert H. Henry
*. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.