
    Marsha Kay SNYDER, Appellant v. Mark AARON, District Attorney; James G. Arner, President Judge; Ralph Montana, Solicitor; The County of Clarion; Trooper Robert S. Hageter, Jr., Pennsylvania State Police; Stanley Drake.
    No. 06-2666.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Dec. 26, 2006.
    Filed: June 18, 2007.
    
      Marsha K. Snyder, Eau Claire, PA, pro se.
    Marie M. Jones, Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, Kemal A. Mericli, Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, PA, A. Taylor Williams, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, Philadelphia, PA, Robert Varsek, Oil City, PA, for Mark Aaron, District Attorney; James G. Arner, President Judge; Ralph Montana, Solicitor; The County of Clarion; Trooper Robert S. Hageter, Jr., Pennsylvania State Police; Stanley Drake.
    Ralph Montana, Clarion, PA, pro se.
    Before: BARRY, CHAGARES and ROTH, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Marsha Kay Snyder appeals the District Court’s order dismissing her complaint. Snyder filed a complaint alleging that the appellees failed to fully prosecute persons who broke into her home and assaulted her. After her initial complaint was dismissed for lack of standing, Snyder filed an amended complaint alleging that appellees violated several Pennsylvania criminal statutes by failing to fully prosecute those persons involved in the break-in and assault. The District Court dismissed the amended complaint for lack of standing. Snyder filed a timely notice of appeal, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We exercise plenary review over the grant of a motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Leuthner v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of N.E. Pa., 454 F.3d 120, 124 (3d Cir.2006). We agree with the District Court that Snyder lacked standing to bring her claims. See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619, 93 S.Ct. 1146, 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973)(“[A] private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”)

For essentially the reasons given by the District Court, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.  