
    Corina Garcia ALBARRAN, Maria Lourdes Segobiano-De Soto, Luis Magana, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DIRECTOR, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Commissioner, Georgia Department Of Driver Services, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Public Safety, Chair, Cobb County Board of Commissioners, Sheriff, Cobb County Sheriffs Office, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-16073
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    July 12, 2012.
    Thomas J. Quigley, Desiree M. Ripo, Winston & Strawn, LLP, New York, NY, Erik J. Meder, Marietta, GA, Micol Olimpia Sordina, Winston & Strawn LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Craig A. Defoe, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, District Court Section, Washington, DC, Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, Sharon Douglas Stokes, Sally Yates, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Roger A. Chalmers, Samuel Scott Olens, Office of the Attorney General, Michael James King, Ernest L. Greer, Amy Michaelson Kelly, Janna Satz Nugent, Joe D. Whitley, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before EDMONDSON, WILSON, and HILL, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Corina Garcia Albarran, Maria Lourdes Segobiano-DeSoto, and Luis Magana appeal the dismissal of this action against John Morton, Greg Dozier, Tim Lee and Neil Warren for declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs sought to have certain agreements between United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement and local Georgia law enforcement agencies declared unconstitutional and permanently enjoined.

The defendants moved to dismiss, asserting, inter alia, that plaintiffs had no standing to bring this action because they could not meet the injury-in-fact requirement by showing an imminent risk of future harm to them. The district court agreed and dismissed the case. Plaintiffs filed this appeal.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs and record in this case. We have also examined the district court’s opinion in which it thoughtfully and completely considered whether plaintiffs could show the requisite injury-in-fact for standing. We agree with the district court that plaintiffs have not made that showing. Since we find no legal error in the district court’s opinion and agree with its analysis and conclusions on this issue, we shall affirm the judgment of the district court on the basis of that opinion. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court dismissing this case is

AFFIRMED.  