Michael Akins v. S & R Development Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: November 17, 2021
• Docket: 21-1602
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-1602 ___________________________

Michael Anthony Akins

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

S & R Development Inc.; Hiren Patel, President, in his official capacity; Lamar Fox, Site Supervisor, in his official capacity

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Northern ____________

Submitted: November 5, 2021 Filed: November 17, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________

Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas resident Michael Akins appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his pro se diversity action. Upon careful de novo review, we affirm.

1 The Honorable D. P. Marshall Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Applying the statute of limitations from Arkansas, see Rose Barge Line, Inc. v. Hicks, 421 F.2d 163, 164 (8th Cir. 1970), we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing the promissory-estoppel, detrimental-reliance, and tort claims as barred by the three-year statute of limitations. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-105. We also conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing the breach-of-contract claim, as it was barred by the five-year statute of limitations. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-111; Chapman v. Alexander, 817 S.W.2d 425, 426 (Ark. 1991). In the absence of fraudulent concealment, the limitation period was not tolled. See O’Mara v. Dykema, 942 S.W.2d 854, 858 (Ark. 1997).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

-2-