United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 22-20372 

Summary Calendar 

Bret Bynum, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Ingram Barge Company; Marquette Transportation 

Company, LLC, 

Defendants—Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:21-CV-3346 

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Appellant Bret Bynum brought an action in October 2021 seeking an 

award for salvaging two barges that broke free from their moorings in August 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

March 31, 2023 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-20372 Document: 00516697466 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2023
No. 22-20372 

2 

2017. The district court dismissed the action as barred by 46 U.S.C. 

§ 80107’s two-year limitations period. Bynum timely appealed. 

This court reviews de novo a district court’s decision to dismiss an 

action for failure to state a claim. Jebaco, Inc. v. Harrah’s Operating Co., 

587 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir. 2009). “A motion to dismiss may be granted on 

a statute of limitations defense where it is evident from the pleadings that the 

action is time-barred, and the pleadings fail to raise some basis for tolling.” 

Taylor v. Bailey Tool Mfg., 744 F.3d 944, 946 (5th Cir. 2014). 

Bynum’s sole argument on appeal is that he brought an “admiralty 

action for salvage,” which is distinct from a “civil action for salvage.” His 

claim is therefore not subject to Section 80107’s limitations period because 

that provision only applies to civil actions. 

This argument confuses jurisdiction with action. Admiralty is a type of 

jurisdiction. See, e.g., U.S. CONST. Art. III, § 2 (extending federal judicial 

power “to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction”). In contrast, 

there is only “one form of action—the civil action.” FED. R. CIV. P. 2. 

Congress has thus provided federal district courts original jurisdiction over 

any “civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1); 

see also Nolan v. Boeing Co., 919 F.2d 1058, 1066 (5th Cir. 1990) (“In federal 

practice, the terms ‘case’ and ‘action’ refer to the same thing, i.e., the 

entirety of a civil proceeding.”). This case is therefore properly 

characterized as a civil action in admiralty jurisdiction. 

Section 80107(c) of Title 46 applies to all “civil action[s] to recover 

remuneration for giving aid or salvage services.” Its applicability does not 

depend on the type of jurisdiction invoked by the litigant.1

 Bynum’s civil 

1 See 8 David J. Bederman, BENEDICT ON ADMIRALTY § 13.08 (2022); accord Am. 

S.S. Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass’n v. Dann Ocean Towing, Inc., 756 F.3d 314, 318 (4th 

Case: 22-20372 Document: 00516697466 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2023
No. 22-20372 

3 

action to recover a salvage award thus falls squarely within the statute’s 

bounds. It therefore must have been “brought within 2 years after the date 

the aid or salvage services were given.” 46 U.S.C. § 80107(c). 

It is undisputed that Bynum did not bring this action to recover 

remuneration for salvage services within two years of performing those 

services. His claim is consequently time-barred. 

* * * 

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED. 

Cir. 2014) (indicating Section 80107(c)’s limitations period applies to maritime salvage 

actions). 

Case: 22-20372 Document: 00516697466 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/31/2023