1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-2023

___________ John B. Holway, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Negro Leagues Baseball Museum, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: February 5, 2008 Filed: February 12, 2008

___________ Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Following a jury trial, John B. Holw ay appeals the district court’s 1 adverse judgment holding that his claims against the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum, Inc. (NLBM) were barred by the applicablestatute of limitations. Upon careful consideration, we find Holway’s arguments on appeal to be without merit, and we affirm.-2- First, NLBM did not waive its statute- of-limitations defense by failing to cite the specific statute in its answer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b) (party shall state defenses in short and plain terms), (c) (party shall se t forth affirmative defenses such as statute of limitations); Buttice v. G.D. Searle & Co. , 938 F. Supp. 561, 565 (E. D. Mo. 1996) (rejecting argument that defendant was require d to include in answer specific statute of limitations; holding Rule 8(c) was satisfiedwhere answer stated , “Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations”).

We further conclude that the district court did not plainly err in submitting to the jury an instruction--to which Holway did not object--related to NLBM’s statuteof-limitations defense. Contrary to Ho lway’s arguments, ther e was ample evidence at trial supporting the submission of the jury instruction. See Slidell, Inc. v. Millenium Inorganic Chems., Inc. , 460 F.3d 1047, 1054 (8th Cir. 2006) (while district court’s jury instructions are generally review ed for abuse of discretion, review is for plain error if challenging party failed in district court to object to instruction and state grounds therefor; under plain-error standard, review is confined to exceptional cases where error has seriously affected fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings). Likewise, there was suffici ent evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Seeid. at1057 (rejecting appellant’s argument that no evidence supported jury finding of waiver of breach of contract; “We cons true this argument as one based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. U nder this rule, the district c ourt’s denial of a new trial is virtually unassailable, and we will reverse only when ther e is an absolute absence of evidence to support the jury’s verdict.”)
We also find no merit to Holway’s newl y asserted equitable-estoppel argument challenging NLBM’s statute-of-limitations defense. SeeMcCrary v. Truman Med. Ctr., Inc. , 916 S.W.2d 831, 833 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995) (equitable estoppel requires defendant to have induced pl aintiff to delay bringing suit until after statutory period expired; doctrine did not apply where defe ndant made no promises or representations to plaintiff to persuade her not to file suit).-3- Finally, because the issue of damages is moot, we need not consider Holway’s challenge to the district court’s exclusion of his damages expert as a trial witness.
The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________