Michael Akins v. S & R Development Inc.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 21-1602
___________________________
Michael Anthony Akins
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
S & R Development Inc.; Hiren Patel, President, in his official capacity; Lamar
Fox, Site Supervisor, in his official capacity
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Northern
____________
Submitted: November 5, 2021
Filed: November 17, 2021
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Arkansas resident Michael Akins appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his
pro se diversity action. Upon careful de novo review, we affirm.
1
The Honorable D. P. Marshall Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Applying the statute of limitations from Arkansas, see Rose Barge Line, Inc.
v. Hicks, 421 F.2d 163, 164 (8th Cir. 1970), we conclude that the district court did not
err in dismissing the promissory-estoppel, detrimental-reliance, and tort claims as
barred by the three-year statute of limitations. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-105. We
also conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing the breach-of-contract
claim, as it was barred by the five-year statute of limitations. See Ark. Code Ann.
§ 16-56-111; Chapman v. Alexander, 817 S.W.2d 425, 426 (Ark. 1991). In the
absence of fraudulent concealment, the limitation period was not tolled. See O’Mara
v. Dykema, 942 S.W.2d 854, 858 (Ark. 1997).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-