OPINION

In September 2011, appellant James Brawner filed a lawsuit based on his unsatisfactory experience with the Art Institute of Philadelphia, which he attended in the late 1990s and sporadically thereafter. He *150 named federal, state, and private defendants, and alleged fraud, negligence, and breach of contract. The District Court dismissed his claims against the governmental defendants for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed his claims against the private defendants as barred by the statute of limitations. See generally Brawner v. Educ. Mgmt. Corp., No. 11-6131, 2012 WL 3064019 (E.D.Pa. July 27, 2012). Brawner appeals only the dismissal of his claims against the private defendants and has expressly abandoned his claims against the federal and state defendants. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm. 1

“State tolling principles ‘are generally to be used by a federal court when it is applying a state limitations period;’ therefore, we look to Pennsylvania law, predicting how the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would resolve the statute of limitations issue.” Knopick v. Connelly, 639 F.3d 600, 606 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Debiec v. Cabot Corp., 352 F.3d 117, 128 (3d Cir. 2003) and citing Jewelcor Inc. v. Karfunkel, 517 F.3d 672, 676 n. 4 (3d Cir. 2008)). In Pennsylvania, the limitations periods for fraud, negligence, and breach of contract claims are two years, two years, and four years, respectively. 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. §§ 5524(7), 5525(a); see also Ash v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 593 Pa. 523, 932 A.2d 877, 879-80 (2007). “Generally, a statute of limitations period begins to run when a cause of action accrues; i.e., when an injury is inflicted and the corresponding right to institute a suit for damages arises.” Gleason v. Borough of Moosic, 609 Pa. 353, 15 A.3d 479, 484 (2011). When properly invoked, however, the “discovery rule” acts “as an exception to this principle, and provides that where the complaining party is reasonably unaware that his or her injury has been caused by another party’s conduct, the discovery rule suspends, or tolls, the running of the statute of limitations.” Id. “Where ... reasonable minds would not differ in finding that a party knew or should have known on the exercise of reasonable diligence of his injury and its cause, the court determines that the discovery rule does not apply as a matter of law.” Fine v. Checcio, 582 Pa. 253, 870 A.2d 850, 858-59 (2005); accord Coregis Ins. Co. v. Baratta & Fenerty, Ltd., 264 F.3d 302, 307 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting Sadtler v. Jackson-Cross Co., 402 Pa.Super. 492, 587 A.2d 727, 732 (1991)).

We agree with the District Court that no reasonable factfinder could conclude that Brawner filed within the limitations period. As discussed above, Brawner’s *151 primary interaction with the defendants occurred in the late 1990s; the latest actual transaction he appears to describe occurred in 2005, well outside of the limitations periods for a suit filed in 2011. Brawner insists that the limitations period was tolled until the 2011 “discovery” of the alleged fraud and breach of contract, but this is belied by his knowledge that something was amiss long before 2011; moreover, he makes no showing that the information retrieved in 2011 was essential to the commencement of a suit. As demonstrated by his complaint and other filings, he knew he was injured and made repeated inquiries of the various defendants, yet was apparently content to allow multiple years to pass between letters and responses. That he may not have been aware of the “full extent” of the possible injury, see Gleason, 15 A.3d at 484, does not save his claims; “a cause of action accrues, and thus the applicable limitations period begins to run, when an injury is inflicted,” Wilson v. El-Daief 600 Pa. 161, 964 A.2d 354, 361 (2009), and “knowledge of every fact necessary to prevail on the claim is not required to ... trigger the accrual period,” Epstein v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 460 F.3d 183, 188 (1st Cir. 2006) (emphasis added and quotation marks omitted) (applying Massachusetts discovery rule). 2

Brawner does not present any other reason why the limitations period should have been tolled during the intervening years. While he invokes his pursuit of “administrative remedies,” he does not explain how an administrative process would have tolled the limitations period on the state common-law claims that remain. Cf. Uber v. Slippery Rock Univ. of Pa., 887 A.2d 362, 367 (Pa.Commw.Ct. 2005) (pursuit of “an employer’s internal administrative proceeding is not sufficient to toll the statute of limitations for filing a PHRA complaint” in Pennsylvania).

In sum, we agree with the District Court that the limitations period has run for the claims that Brawner now appeals. 3 We will therefore affirm the court’s judgment.