Barnes v. Genetic Technologies, Inc.

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
May 22, 2007
FO R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
GREGORY J. BA RN ES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 06-3335
(D.C. No. 05-CV-1328-M LB)
GENETIC TECHNOLOGIES, IN C., (D . Kan.)
Defendant-Appellee.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before M cCO NNELL, PO RFILIO, and BALDOCK , Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Gregory J. Barnes, appearing pro se, appeals from the district
court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant on the ground that the statute of
limitations had run on all of plaintiff’s claims before he filed suit. W e have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Plaintiff filed suit on October 25, 2005, against defendant Genetic
Technologies, Inc. after he was adjudged in a paternity case to be the biological
father of a minor child and liable for child support and certain other expenses.
The district court liberally construed plaintiff’s complaint to assert claims for
fraud, misrepresentation, and either defamation or invasion of privacy. The court
determined that because the alleged torts occurred in Kansas, that Kansas law
applies. See Carolina Indus. Products, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 189 F. Supp. 2d 1147,
1163 n.12 (D. Kan. 2001). The court evaluated all of plaintiff’s claims and
determined that they are governed either by a one-year or a two-year statute of
limitations under Kansas law. The court set out the governing authorities in its
M emorandum and Order. See R., Doc. 96, at 7-8. The court concluded that the
undisputed facts show that defendant published its final DNA test results on
October 25, 2001, and that plaintiff was aware of the results by October 25 or 26,
2001. The court therefore concluded that the statute of limitations had run on all
of plaintiff’s claims before he filed suit in October 2005. The court entered
summary judgment for defendant and denied plaintiff’s subsequent motion for
reconsideration.
“W e review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.” Boyler
v. Cordant Techs., Inc., 316 F.3d 1137, 1138 (10th Cir. 2003). W e have reviewed
the parties’ materials in light of the applicable law. W e are unpersuaded by
plaintiff’s arguments that Kansas law provides a ten-year statute of limitations for
-2-
fraud claims or that there is a factual issue as to when he was injured by
defendant’s DNA test results. W e affirm for substantially the same reasons
as those stated in the district court’s thorough M emorandum and Order of
August 14, 2006.
A FFIR ME D.
Entered for the Court
M ichael W . M cConnell
Circuit Judge
-3-