James Helenthal v. Charles Polk, Jr. , 406 F. App'x 85 ( 2010 )

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-1583
___________
James Helenthal, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the Eastern
* District of Missouri.
Charles E. Polk, Jr.; Lathrop *
& Gage, LC, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: September 21, 2010
Filed: December 16, 2010
___________
Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
In this diversity matter, James Helenthal appeals following the district court’s1
dismissal of his final claim. We find no basis, and Helenthal has provided none, for
reversing the dismissal of Count 1 as time-barred, see Dubinsky v. Mermart, LLC, 595
F.3d 812, 815 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of dismissal for failure to state claim);
Sloan v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 368 F.3d 853, 854 (8th Cir. 2004) (reviewing de
novo district court’s application of state law in diversity case); or for reversing the
1
The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
dismissal of Count 4 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, see Riehm v. Engelking,
538 F.3d 952, 964 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review). Helenthal has waived his
remaining claims against appellees. See Pritchett v. Cottrell, Inc., 512 F.3d 1057,
1059 n.2 (8th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also
grant Lathrop & Gage, LC’s motion for sanctions of attorneys’ fees and double costs
under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 for the reasons stated in the motion.
______________________________
-2-