Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Fred NEAL, Jr., individually and as Trustee Fred Neal, Jr. Revocable Trust, Appellant, Doris Neal, individually and as Trustee Doris Neal Revocable Trust; John H. Sinclair, Trustee Deep Water Designs; Davis Munck, P.C., Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-02
Citations: 391 F. App'x 569
Docket Number: No. 09-2045
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Fred NEAL, Jr., individually and as Trustee Fred Neal, Jr. Revocable Trust, Appellant, Doris Neal, individually and as Trustee Doris Neal Revocable Trust; John H. Sinclair, Trustee Deep Water Designs; Davis Munck, P.C., Defendants.
Judges: Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 391
Pages: 569–569

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Fred NEAL, Jr., individually and as Trustee Fred Neal, Jr. Revocable Trust, Appellant, Doris Neal, individually and as Trustee Doris Neal Revocable Trust; John H. Sinclair, Trustee Deep Water Designs; Davis Munck, P.C., Defendants.
No. 09-2045.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 30, 2010.
Filed: Sept. 2, 2010.
Ivan Clay Dale, Stephanie M. Page, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Appellee.
Fred Neal, Jr., Harrison, AR, pro se.
Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Fred Neal appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in this civil case involving certain tax assessments and the foreclosure of federal tax liens. He argues among other things that he did not owe any taxes, that the statute of limitations had expired, and that the district court should have allowed him to file certain additional documents.
After careful de novo review, viewing the evidence and all fair inferences from it in the light most favorable to Neal, see Johnson v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir.2006), we conclude that the grant of summary judgment was proper for the reasons stated by the district court. We further conclude that Neal waived his statute-of-limitations argument, see United States v. Big D. Enter., Inc., 184 F.3d 924, 935 (8th Cir.1999) (defense based upon statute of limitations is generally waived if not raised in responsive pleading), and, in any event, the argument is meritless, see 26 U.S.C. § 6502(a)(1) (where assessment of any tax imposed by this title has been made within period of limitation properly applicable thereto, such tax may be collected by levy or by proceeding in court, but only if levy is made or proceeding begun within 10 years after assessment of tax). We also find no reversible error in the court's handling of the record.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.