Case ID: f-appx_102/html/0419-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Earleen PINE; et al., Plaintiffs Earleen Pine; Hoyle S. Kruse; Donald B. Dulin; Patricia A. Dulin; Mary V. Renton; Tena J. Shepherd; Michael L. Shepard; Jack Fitts; Jan Fitts, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF MIDLAND, also known as City of Midland, Texas; Rick Menchaca; Gary Saunders, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 03-50988.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided July 8, 2004.
    David Matthew Freeman, Matt Freeman & Associates, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Terry Wayne Rhoads, Michael Jay Will-son, Cotton, Bledsoe, Tighe & Dawson, Karla J. Whitsitt, Midland, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The appellants-property owners appeal from the summary judgment dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims as barred by the statute of limitations. Applying the same test as the district court, we affirm. See Deas v. River West, L.P., 152 F.3d 471, 475 (5th Cir.1998).

We hold that the district court did not err in its determination that equitable tolling did not apply in the instant case and, therefore, that the § 1983 claims were barred by Texas’s two-year limitations period for personal injury actions. See Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-50, 109 S.Ct. 573, 102 L.Ed.2d 594 (1989); Henson-El v. Rogers, 923 F.2d 51, 52 (5th Cir.1991). We do not consider the appellants arguments raised for the first time on appeal that (1) application of the two-year limitations period is unconstitutional as applied to their Fifth Amendment takings claims and (2) fairness mandates the application of the equitable doctrine of laches. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.1999).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.