UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

HERBERT BUCKLAND; 

JANE BUCKLAND, 

 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

DOUGLAS BUCKLAND; DEPUTY 

MONICA SMITH; DETECTIVE 

DEWAYNE HALL; DETECTIVE 

JASON JACKSON, 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 11-7074 

(D.C. No. 6:11-CV-00285-FHS) 

(E.D. Okla.)

 

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before TYMKOVICH, BALDOCK, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges. 

 

That 1956 Mercury coupe must be quite a car. Back in 1996, Herbert 

Buckland made a gift of it to his son, Douglas. No doubt the son was thrilled. But 

the car, its sharp chrome grille and hot red paint job, continued to weigh on the 

 

*

 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

June 18, 2012

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

father’s mind and a decade later he decided he wanted it back. Knowing his son 

wouldn’t part with the car, Herbert stole it. 

The son didn’t go quietly. Wanting the car no less than his father, Douglas 

decided to sue. After much wrangling in state court, the son won a judgment against 

his father and, with the help of law enforcement officers, he recouped the coupe in 

April 2008. See Buckland v. Buckland, No. 57C01-0801-PL-001 (Noble County, 

Indiana Circuit Court, Jul. 22, 2009); ROA at 13-17. 

But that car’s hold on Herbert was powerful. For more than three years he 

stewed over its loss. Eventually, in August 2011, he filed a lawsuit of his own, this 

time a civil rights lawsuit in federal court. Herbert and his new wife Jane claimed 

that Douglas and various law enforcement officers who may (or may not) have 

helped with the repossession back in April 2008 violated state law and the United 

States Constitution, too. 

When the district court dismissed their suit at the pleadings stage, Herbert and 

Jane appealed. But as the district court explained and we agree, most of their claims 

are untimely. In federal civil rights actions we borrow limitations periods from the 

forum state (here, Oklahoma). See McCarty v. Gilchrist, 646 F.3d 1281, 1289 

(10th Cir. 2011). And in this case that means Herbert and Jane had two years to file 

any claims arising from the April 2008 repossession. Id. Their lawsuit, filed in 

August 2011, came too late. On Herbert and Jane’s one remaining and possibly 

timely claim — a claim arising not from the 2008 repossession but from complaints 
- 3 - 

the couple filed with authorities in 2009 (the so-called “failure to investigate” claim) 

— the Bucklands’ opening appellate brief fails to challenge the district court’s order 

dismissing it on the merits as a matter of law. And the failure to do so means we are 

left without any reason to reverse. See, e.g., LifeWise Master Funding v. Telebank, 

374 F.3d 917, 927 n.10 (10th Cir. 2004) (issue not presented in opening brief is 

waived). With that, one might hope this unfortunate family dispute and its long 

running connection to the courts will finally come to rest. 

Affirmed. The “Motion for Prejudgment Possession” is denied. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Neil M. Gorsuch 

 Circuit Judge