NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 12a0855n.06
No. 11-3227
UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T
AARON RAI SER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. CORPOR ATI ON OF THE PRESI DENT OF THE CHURCH OF JES US CHRI ST OF L ATTERDAY SAI NTS; L DS FAMI L Y SERVI CES; L DS SOCI AL SERVI CES; DOES 1-10,
Def endants-A

ppellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN D I STRI CT OF OHI O

Be fore : MARTI

N and CL AY, Circuit J udg es; HOOD , District J udg e. *

PER CURI AM. Aar on Raiser, a California resident proce ed i n g p r o se , appea ls a district
court judgme nt g ranting summary judgme nt to the defe ndants in this diversity of citizenship case filed pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1332. Seeking monetary relief

, Raiser alleg ed that while he was living in Ohio with his pare nts, he had a verba l alterc ation with a churc h bishop of the Church of J esus Christ of L atter- Day Saints. The bishop subsequently asked an assistant bishop, who was a psy cholog ist, to evalua te Raiser. Raiser had one thera

py session with the assistant bishop in 1988. The assistant bishop alleg edly disclosed the contents of his conver sation with Raiser to the bi shop, who t hen communicated t he session to Raiser’s fathe r. T h e bishop purportedly order ed Raiser’s fathe r to commit Raiser to a mental instit ution. Raiser was committed to an instit ution in J anuar y 1989, rele ased in Marc h 1989, and reThe Honora

ble J oseph M

. Ho od, United States District J udg e for the Easter n District of * Kentucky , sitti ng by

desig nation.No. 11-3227 - 2 - committed in Dec em b er 1 9 90. Raiser esca ped the mental instit ution in 1991, and fled to Utah. Raiser alleg ed a brea ch of fiduciar y duty , a brea ch of confide nce, profe ssional malprac tice, and emotional distress. The defe ndants moved for summary judgme nt. A mag istrate judge denied, in part, Raiser’s subsequent motion to amend his complaint and denied his motion for discovery

. Raiser objected to the mag istrate judge ’s decisio n s
. The district court g rante d the defe ndants’ motion for summary judgme nt and dismiss ed the case without ruling on Raiser’s object i o n s t o t he mag istrate judge ’s order

. I n his timely appea l, Raiser arg ues that the district court err ed by g ranting summary judgme nt
to the defe ndants; by deny ing his motion for leave to amend his complaint to include additional claims; and by

deny ing his motion for discove ry
. We revie w a g rant of summary judgme nt de novo
. Dixon v. Gonzales , 481 F.3d 324, 330 (6th Cir. 2007)

. Summary

judgme nt is proper “ if the movant shows that there is no g enuine dispute as to any materia l fac t and the movant is entitled to judgme nt as a matter of law.” Fe d. R. Civ. P. 56(a)

. Raiser arg ues that the district court err ed by g ranting summary judgme nt without considering his brea ch of confide nce claim. Raiser asser ts that he raised a leg it i mate cause of action under Biddle v. W

arren Gen. Hosp. , 715 N.E.2d 518 (Ohio 1999). Howeve r, Biddle is inapplicable to this

case beca use the cause of action only applies to phy sicians or hospitals who disclos e n o n p u blic medical infor

mation to a third party

. Biddle , 715 N.E.2d at 523. R ai s er admittedly discovere d his injury in 2003 when he was informed by the Ge n er al Counsel of Br igha

m Y oung University , which he was attending , that the Church had disclosed his
psy chiatric history

. On the basis of this disclosure, Raiser sued the Church and the University in the United States District Court f or the District of Utah in Septe mber 2004. The district court g rante d the defe ndants’ motion for summary judgme nt on Fe bruar y 7, 2006, dismiss ing the acti o n i n i t s entirety

. Be cause Raiser was awa

re of the disclosure in 2003, but did not file his complaint in this case until 2010, his brea ch of fiduciar y duty claim i s barr ed by Ohio’s four-y ear sta tute of l imitations

.No. 11-3227 - 3 -

Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.09(D); Union Sav. Bank v. Lawyers Titl e Ins. Corp. , 946 N.E.2d 835, 844 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). His claim for injury to his reputa tion resulti ng from his involuntary commitment is barr ed by the two-y ea r s t at u te of limit ations contained in Ohio Revised Code § 2305.10(A). Lawyers Coop. Publ’g Co. v. Muething , 603 N.E.2d 969, 972–7 5 (O h i o 1 9 92). Raiser’s claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress he alleg edly suffe red while he was involuntarily committed is also barr ed by the two-y ear statute of limit ations cont ai n ed in section 2305.10(A). Id .; Lisboa v. Tramer , No. 97526, 2012 WL 1142920, at *4 n.2 (Ohio Ct. App. Apr. 5, 2012). His claim for malprac tice ag ainst the psy cholog ist i s barr ed by the four- y ear statute of limit ations in section 2305.09(D) beca use the two-y ear statute of limit ations for malprac tice under Oh i o Revised Code § 2305.11 does not apply to psy cholog ists. See Thompson v. Cmty. Me n t a l Health Ctrs. , 642 N.E.2d 1102, 1104 (Ohio 1994)

. Raiser complains that the district court acc epted as fac t an excerpt from the deposition of his fathe r. Whil e the testimony is mentioned in the “B ackg round” sect i o n of the opinion, it was irrele vant to the district court’s r easoning and is harmless. See Fe d. R. Civ. P . 61. Raiser arg ues that the district court err ed by deny ing his motion to amend his complaint. We revie w the district court’s decision for an abuse of discretion. Johnson v. City of Mem phis , 617 F.3d 864, 871 (6th Cir. 2010), cert. denied , 131 S. Ct. 1478 (2011). “An abuse of discretion exis ts only when we are left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court made a clea r err or of judgme nt.” Vene klase v. Bridgewater Condos, L.C. , 670 F.3d 7 0 5 , 709 (6th Cir. 2012) (interna l quotation marks and c itation omit ted). A di strict court may deny a party leave t o amend a complaint if there is “undue delay , bad faith or dilatory motive on t h e part of the movant, repe ated failure to cure defic iencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowanc e of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.” F o ma n v. Davis , 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Any amendment to the complaint would have been dilatory and cause d undue p r e ju d ic e to the defe ndants.No. 11-3227 - 4 - Raiser wished to raise a claim of fra ud. Howeve r, the claim would have been barr ed by the four- y ear statute of limit ations of section 2305.09(C). Dibert v. Carpenter , 9 6 1 F. 2 d 1217, 1223 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). Raiser also wanted to add claims of s p oliation, conspirac y , and cler g y malprac tice, but the alleg ations do not contain the nece ssary fac ts require d by Ohio law. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Leahey Constr. Co. , 219 F.3d 519, 534 (6th Cir. 2000); Smith v. Howard Johnson Co. , 615 N.E.2d 1037, 1038 (Ohio 1993); Strock v. Pressnell , 527 N.E.2d 1235, 1239–40 (Ohio 1988). The district court did not abuse its discre tion in deny ing Raiser discovery following the defe ndants’ motion for summary judgme nt. Dortch v. Fowler , 588 F.3d 396, 400 (6th Cir. 2009). Raiser’s claims wer e barr ed by the applicable statutes of limit ations, meaning that discovery would have been meaning less. Thus, the district court’s decision did not aff ect Raiser’s substantial rig hts. Id

. Finally , Raiser contends that the district court err ed by failing to rule on his timely objections
to the mag istrate j u d ge’ s d ec ision. See Fe d. R. Civ. P. 72(a)

. Howeve r, by g ranting summary judgme nt to the defe ndants, the district court implicitl y overr uled Raiser’s objections. See Fielding v. Tollaksen , 510 F.3d 175, 179 ( 5th Cir. 2007). The district cour

t’s judgme nt is affirmed.