To have "standing" the plaintiff must show "(1) a particularized injury-in-fact, (2) evidence showing that that the party being sued actually caused the plaintiff’s particularized injury-in-fact, and (3) that adjudication of the matter would actually provide redress."  In regards to injury the judge writes, "regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact."
Apparently, the judge doesn't feel that citizens of the United States would be injured by having provisions of the U.S. Constitution unenforceable. He writes that Congress must pass laws to give citizens the right to police provision of the Constitution with regards to presidential eligibility:
If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.
In response to the ruling Philip J. Berg issued the following statement:
"This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution," Berg said. "If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States--the most powerful man in the entire world--is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?"
Berg is expected to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. We'll keep you updated.
UPDATE: Berg has filed his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083."