UNITED STATES CO URT 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 qu ite a car. Back in 1996, Herbert Buckland made a gift of it to his son, D ouglas. No doubt the son was thrilled. But the car, its sharp chro me grille and hot red paint job, continued to weigh on the

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not mate rially assist the de termination 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R App. P. 32.1 a nd 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 la ter 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 hi s 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 powerfu l. For more than three years he

stewed over its loss. Eventually, in August 2011, he f iled 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 enforcem ent officers who may (or may not) have helped with the repossession back in Ap ril 2008 violated state law and the United States Constitution, too.

When the district court dism issed their suit at the pl eadings stage, Herbert and Jane appealed. But as the district court e xplained and we agree, most of their claims are untimely. In federal ci vil rights actions we borro w 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 th e April 2008 repossession. Id . Their lawsuit, filed in August 2011, came too late. On Herber t and Jane’s one re maining and possibly timely claim — a claim arising not from th e 2008 repossession but from complaints- 3 - the couple filed with authorities in 2009 (the so-called “failure to investigate” claim) — the Bucklands’ opening appella te 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 (10t h Cir. 2004) (issue not pres ented 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 Prej udgment Possession” is denied.

Entered for the Court

Neil M. Gorsuch Circuit Judge