Graham

Harvey and Doris Madison, Charles and Elena d’Autremont, and Harrison Saunders (collectively “appellants”) appeal from the district court’s published decision dismissing their complaint with prejudice. The appellants sought to have Montana’s Stream Access Law, Mont.Code Ann. §§ 23-2-301, et seq., declared unconstitutional on the grounds that it (1) violated their Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights, and (2) was void for vagueness. The district court held that (1) the appellants’ substantive due process claim was in reality a Fifth Amendment takings claim, and (2) the appellants failed to properly challenge the *869 statute on vagueness grounds. Accordingly, the district court dismissed the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

I

Because this case was dismissed for failure to state a claim, all allegations of material fact in the complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the appellants. Am. Family Ass’n, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 277 F.3d 1114 , 1120 (9th Cir.2002). The…