Case Name: James L. WEEMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-14
Citations: 569 F. App'x 494
Docket Number: No. 12-35840
Parties: James L. WEEMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 569
Pages: 494–495

Head Matter:
James L. WEEMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-35840.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 7, 2014.
Filed April 14, 2014.
James L. Weems, Pasco, WA, pro se.
Brent H. Smith, Baum Smith LLC, La Grande, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
James L. Weems appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging federal claims arising from purportedly false statements made in a prior state court action regarding the reason for discharging Weems from employment as a tenured professor. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. See Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir.1999) (dismissal on the basis of the statute of limitations); Romano v. Bible, 169 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.1999) (dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed all of Weems's claims as barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. See Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.110 (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions, including fraud); Knox v. Davis, 260 F.3d 1009, 1012-13 (9th Cir.2001) (for § 1983 claims, federal courts apply the forum state's personal injury statute of limitations and federal law for determining accrual; a § 1983 claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury that forms the basis of the action). Because the claims were properly dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations, we do not reach any other issues.
Weems's contention regarding the denial of leave to amend is unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.