Court Opinion

ID: 9383981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 16:00:46.733927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:49.347621
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-1335
                        ___________________________

                                 John Louis Atkins

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

                                           v.

                                Adam James Atkins

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
                                      ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the District of North Dakota - Eastern
                                  ____________

                            Submitted: March 28, 2023
                              Filed: March 31, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before GRUENDER, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      John Atkins appeals the loss of a tort case against his son. Having carefully
reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the
magistrate judge, 1 sitting by consent of the parties, did not commit reversible error
when it dismissed two claims before trial and refused to grant a new trial or amend
its judgment on others. See Shell Oil Co. v. Ross, 356 S.W.3d 924, 927, 929–30
(Tex. 2011) (explaining when the fraudulent-concealment doctrine and discovery
rule extend a statute of limitations under Texas law); Tex. Bank & Tr. Co. v. Moore,
595 S.W.2d 502, 508 (Tex. 1980) (stating that being a family member “do[es] not,
standing alone, establish a fiduciary relationship”). We also conclude that the
challenge to the court’s denial of post-judgment relief is not properly before us
because Atkins failed to appeal it. See United States v. Mannis, 186 F.3d 863, 864
(8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam); Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B). We accordingly affirm the
judgment.2 See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                         ______________________________

      1
        The Honorable Alice R. Senechal, United States Magistrate Judge for the
District of North Dakota, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by
consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
      2
      We grant the motion seeking to strike an outside-the-record letter, but
otherwise deny the remaining motions.
                                      -2-