Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06328/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06328-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ROBERT E. TRACY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FILED 

Uoited State$ Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cir~it 

i;EB 12 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. No. 89-6328 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-1277-T} 

( W. D. Ok la. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Robert E. Tracy appeals from the district court's order 

dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted due to staleness and lack of factual 

statements in support. Reconsideration was denied September 13, 

1989. We affirm. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-6328 Document: 01019963044 Date Filed: 02/12/1990 Page: 1 
Dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint was proper. The 

complaint contains numerous conclusory and vague allegations of 

putatively unconstitutional conduct by federal and state officials 

that apparently occurred between 1963 and 1974. Any such claims 

are now barred by the statute of limitations derived from Oklahoma 

law. See Garcia~ Wilson, 731 F.2d 640, 650-51 (10th Cir. 1984) 

(en bane), aff'd, 471 U.S. 261 (1985); Abbitt~ Franklin, 731 

• 

F.2d 661, 663 (10th Cir. 1984); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 95 

Third (1988). 

Furthermore, we find that the plaintiff has failed to set out 

adequately a "short and plain statement'' of his claim showing that 

he is entitled to relief as required by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 8. Under these circumstances, we cannot say the 

district court erred. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

2 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-6328 Document: 01019963044 Date Filed: 02/12/1990 Page: 2