The Honor able Curtis L . Colli er, Chief United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District * of Tenne ssee, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0756n.06 F iled: Dec em ber 12, 2008 Nos. 07-3847/07-4097 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

E LIZA B E T H P O W E LL, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,

v. W A L-M AR T S T OR E S , I NC

. , L E R OY S C HU E T Z, STE VE N B E RTS CH Y, CH RI STO PHE R WAL TE RS, JONA TH ANF OR TM AN , CU RTI S F OW L ER, D A N I E L M c L A UGHL I N, WAL TER TRUSZK OWS K I , ST A N I SL A W K OSTEK, PI NN AC L E MAN AG EM E N T , I N C

. , B AR RY CL I FTO N, PAUL MUDD, J OHN KENDA L L , MI KE RANDAZ Z O, SCOTT BAI L E Y, and VI NCENT ROMANO, De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C O U R T F O R THE N O RT H E RND I ST RI CT OF O H IO M E M O R A N D U M

O P I N I O N

BEFORE: MARTIN and McK EAGU E, Circuit Judges; a nd COL LIER, Chi ef District Judge. * P ER CURIAM . Eliz abeth Powell sued Wal-Ma rt Stores, Inc., Pinnacle Manag ement, Inc., and a numbe r of individuals over a n injury she suffe red while workingat W al-Mar t Stores. She alleg ed violations of the fede ral Racke teer Influenc ed and Corrupt Org anizations Ac t (“RI CO”), the Ohio Pattern of Corr

upt Activity

Act (“ Ohio PCA”), and neg lige nce a nd rec kless disreg ard f

or the

sa fe ty of oth e rs un de r O hio c omm on law. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

dis mis sed P owe ll’ s RI CO and Oh ioNos. 07-3847/07-4097

Powell v. W

al-Mart Stores, Inc.

- 2 - PCA claims for fa iling to alleg e a viable claim for relief. The dist rict court dismiss ed hercommonlaw cla im as time-barr ed. The district court subseque ntly deni ed Powell’s motion under F eder al Rule of Civil P rocedure 60 f or re lief fr om judgment. Powell appe aled both the district cour t’s orig inal judgme nt dismi ssing he r cla ims and the court’ s denial of he r Rule 60 motion. Ha v i n g ca re fu l l y co n s i d er edt h e p art i es ’ b ri ef s o nap p ea l an d

th e r ec o rdo f t h e p ro ce ed i n gs be l o w , w e ar e n o t p e r s u a d e d t h a t a l e n g th y o p i n i o n i s n e c e s s ar y . A s t o P o w e l l ’ s R I C O andOh io PCA claims, we AF F IRM for the rea sons set forth by the district court. Po we ll v . W al- Ma rt S tor es, Inc. , No. 1: 06-CV-603, sli p op. at 2-4 (N.D. Ohio Aug . 14, 2007) (“ Powell II ” ) (o n Po we ll’ s Ru le 60 mot ion ); Powell v. W

al-Mart Stores, Inc. , No. 1:0 6- CV -6 03 , 200 7 WL 98 73 21 , at * 2 (N. D. Oh io Mar. 30, 2007) (“

Po we ll I ”) ( on defe ndants’ motions to dism iss). As to P ow e ll’ s st a te c omm on -l aw c la im, a fa ir re a din g of

the c omp la int

c on fi rm s th a t Po we ll

asser ted this claim ag ainst Pinnacle Mana g ement under a theor y of re spondeat super ior and not ag ainst Wal-Mart Stores or any of the individual d ef en d an ts. SeeCom

pla int ¶¶ 85 -8 6. Pinna c le Mana g e me nt argued in its mot ion to d ism iss that th e c la im w a s ti me -b arr e d. Pow e ll f a ile d to respond to the a

rgument, and the district cour t dismi ssed the cla im. Po we ll I , 2007 WL987321, at *2. I n a subsequent motion to alter or a mend, she a

rgued for the first time that her state common-law claim was not time-ba

rre d under O hio’s saving s statute, O.R.C. § 2305.19; s h e re i t er ated the argument in her Rule 60 motion. We ag ree with the district court that Powell failed to addr ess the d ef en s e i n a timely

manner , and, ther efor e, we likewise AF F IRM f o r th e r e a s o n s s tate d b y

the district court. Powell II

, slip op. at 4-6.