
    Dina JAEGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Connecticut Siting Council, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-1347-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 7, 2010.
    Whitney North Seymour, Jr., New York, NY; Gabriel North Seymour, Falls Village, CT, for Dina Jaeger.
    Joshua S. Turner, Andrew G. McBride, Brendan J. Morrissey, Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, DC; Bradford S. Babbitt, Robinson & Cole LLP, Hartford, CT, for Célico Partnership.
    Robert L. Marconi, Assistant Attorney General of Connecticut, New Britain, CT, for Connecticut Siting Council.
    Present: AMALYA L. KEARSE, WALKER, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Dina Jaeger appeals from the district court’s judgment granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss all six claims in Jaeger’s complaint. Jaeger’s complaint alleged, inter alia, violations of the International Migratory Bird Treaty, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Telecommunications Act (“TCA”), resulting from the grant by the Connecticut Siting Council (“Council”) of a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need for the Construction, Maintenance and Operation of a personal wireless service facility to Célico Partnership (“Célico”). Jaeger principally requested injunctive and declaratory relief. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues presented on appeal.

We review a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss de novo, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor. See Goldstein v. Pa-taki, 516 F.3d 50, 56 (2d Cir.2008).

Having conducted a de novo review of the record in light of the controlling substantive principles, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the first five claims in Jaeger’s complaint for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court.

With respect to the sixth claim in Jae-ger’s complaint, we hold that Jaeger lacks standing to sue for a declaratory judgment that the funding scheme of the Council, as set forth in Section 16-50v of the General Statutes of Connecticut, violates due process. Jaeger fails to allege any redressa-ble injury that is “fairly traceable” to conduct by either defendant. Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984). Courts are barred by the TCA from ordering the Council to deny Celleo’s siting application on the grounds asserted by Jaeger.

We have considered Jaeger’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Jaeger’s renewed motion to strike irrelevant matter is DENIED in its entirety.  