Case ID: f-appx_406/html/0085-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James HELENTHAL, Appellant, v. Charles E. POLK, Jr.; Lathrop & Gage, LC, Appellees.
    No. 10-1583.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 21, 2010.
    Filed: Dec. 16, 2010.
    James Everett Hullverson, Jr., Hullverson & Hullverson, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
    Paul E. Kovacs, Jay Arthur Summer-ville, Armstrong & Teasdale, St. Louis, MO, for Appellee.
    Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

In this diversity matter, James Helenthal appeals following the district court’s dismissal of his final claim. We find no basis, and Helenthal has provided none, for reversing the dismissal of Count 1 as time-barred, see Dubinsky v. Mermart, LLC, 595 F.3d 812, 815 (8th Cir.2010) (de novo review of dismissal for failure to state claim); Sloan v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 368 F.3d 853, 854 (8th Cir.2004) (reviewing de novo district court’s application of state law in diversity case); or for reversing the dismissal of Count 4 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, see Riehm v. Engelking, 538 F.3d 952, 964 (8th Cir.2008) (standard of review). Helenthal has waived his remaining claims against appellees. See Pritchett v. Cottrell, Inc., 512 F.3d 1057, 1059 n. 2 (8th Cir.2008). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also grant Lathrop & Gage, LC’s motion for sanctions of attorneys’ fees and double costs under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 for the reasons stated in the motion. 
      
      . The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.