Case Name: Jack SUNSERI; Consolidated Partners, Limited, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Phyllis PROCTOR; Conrad Proctor; David Proctor; Conrad A. Proctor Family Trust; Phyllis Proctor Family Trust; Anderson-Proctor Trust; Phyllis D. Proctor Trust; Anderson-Proctor Family Limited Partnership; Proctor, LLC; Anderson-Proctor, LLC, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-18
Citations: 286 F. App'x 930
Docket Number: No. 07-1715
Parties: Jack SUNSERI; Consolidated Partners, Limited, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Phyllis PROCTOR; Conrad Proctor; David Proctor; Conrad A. Proctor Family Trust; Phyllis Proctor Family Trust; Anderson-Proctor Trust; Phyllis D. Proctor Trust; Anderson-Proctor Family Limited Partnership; Proctor, LLC; Anderson-Proctor, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 286
Pages: 930–931

Head Matter:
Jack SUNSERI; Consolidated Partners, Limited, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Phyllis PROCTOR; Conrad Proctor; David Proctor; Conrad A. Proctor Family Trust; Phyllis Proctor Family Trust; Anderson-Proctor Trust; Phyllis D. Proctor Trust; Anderson-Proctor Family Limited Partnership; Proctor, LLC; Anderson-Proctor, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-1715.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Aug. 18, 2008.
Before: DAUGHTREY, COOK, and FARRIS, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable Jerome Farris, Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
COOK, Circuit Judge.
In order to enforce a prior judgment against general partnership Macro Cellular Partners ("Macro"), plaintiffs Jack Sunseri and Consolidated Partners, Ltd. (collectively, "Sunseri"), seek to reach the individual assets of defendant partners (collectively, the "Proctors") unnamed in the original suit. The district court granted summary judgment for the Proctors, concluding that Sunseri's claims against the Proctors accrued with the claims against the partnership and the relevant statutes of limitations now barred the action. Review of the briefs and record counsels us to agree with the district court. Because a separate opinion would add little to the district court's analysis, we affirm the court's judgment, adopting its reasoning.