ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

After examining the appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in 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.

Christopher Rooks, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court order dismissing his civil action. Rooks filed this action in district court pursuant to the judicial review provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act. See 5 U.S.C. § 702. In his complaint, Rooks challenged the administrative forfeiture of $96,000 in United States currency. The district court concluded that because the forfeiture occurred in 1993, and because Rooks was aware of that fact, his civil action was barred by the six-year limitations period set out in 28 U.S.C. § 2401. The district court further concluded that given Rooks’s obvious lack of diligence, he was not entitled to have the limitations period equitably tolled.

The district court’s resolution of this case is undeniably correct. Accordingly, exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the district court’s order of dismissal.