* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 1/2/97 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
JAMES ANDREW THOMAS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. SECRETARY OF ARMY,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 96-6182 (D.C. No. CIV-95-1762-L) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO, BALDOCK, and HENRY, Circuit Judges
.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Plaintiff appeals from a district court order dismi ssing this action, brought against the Secretary of the Army in 1995 to remedy alleged misconduct dating from 1982, as time-barred. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a)(“civil action commenced against the United States shall be barred unless th e complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues”). S ee generallyAldrich v. McCulloch Properties, Inc. , 627 F.2d 1036, 1041 n.4 (10th Cir. 1980(limitatio ns issue may be resolved on motion to dismiss). Exercising de novo review, see Edwards v. Int’l Union , 46 F.3d 1047, 1050 (10th Cir.), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 60 (1995); Jarrett v. US Sprint Communications Co. , 22 F.3d 256, 258 (10th Cir. 1994), we affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the distric t court’s order of dismissal. As a detailed account of the pertinent background i s provided in plaintiff’s appellate brief, and may also be found in Thomas v. Cheney , 925 F.2d 1407 (Fed. Cir. 1991), we refer only to those matters necessary to explain our disposition. Plaintiff alleges that the Department of the Army w rongfully withheld documents regarding an adverse designation of his service status effective in 1982. The district court noted that plaintiff had filed sever al lawsuits advancing similar or related allegations since 1985, and expressly follo wed the dispositive rationale of the last, Thomas v. Army , No. 94-C-739-E (N.D. Okla. Mar. 15, 1995), in dismissing the present case as time-barred.-3-

Plaintiff attempts to excuse the patent untimelines s of this action by invoking the equitable tolling principle of fraudul ent concealment. However, this excuse is not available to a tardy plaintiff who, n otwithstanding the alleged concealment, had “actual []or constructive knowledg e of the facts constituting his claim for relief.” Clulow v. Oklahoma , 700 F.2d 1291, 1301 (10th Cir. 1983); see, e.g. , Newcomb v. Ingle , 827 F.2d 675, 679 (10th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff ad mits knowledge of “the gravamen of the case” as of “late 1982,” but insists that the full extentof the matter still is not known to him. Appellan t’s Opening Brief, Extra Pages at 6. Our case law makes it clear thatthe decisive, if partial, knowledge concededly possessed by plaintiff was suf ficient for application of the statutory bar. See, e.g. , Industrial Constructors Corp. v. United States Bu reau of Reclamation , 15 F.3d 963, 969 (10th Cir. 1994); Robbins v. Uni ted States , 624 F.2d 971, 972-73 (10th Cir. 1980). The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s motion to amend his brief is granted; his motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. The mandat e shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio Circuit Judge