UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 01-60252 Summary Calendar Civil Docket # 1:98-CV-329-S _______________________

BILLY LANSDELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ARAMARK UNIFORM AND CAREER APPAREL, INC., doing business as Aratex, doing business as Aramark Linen Service,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi _________________________________________________________________ December 7, 2001

Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The court has carefully reviewed the two issues raised by

appellant Billy Lansdell in his contractual controversy with

Aramark Uniform and Career Apparel, Inc.: Whether the district

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. court erroneously excluded evidence of a contract from the jury;

and whether the court erroneously held certain property damage and

theft claims barred by the statute of limitations. Finding no

reversible error, we affirm the judgment.

First, the district court excluded evidence of the

December 17, 1992 “Greenville contract” on the basis of Appellant’s

answers to Requests for Admissions. Appellant concedes that his

counsel erred in admitting that all contracts between the parties

had been produced. Appellant subsequently attempted to introduce

another contract which had not been produced. He never moved to

withdraw or amend the answers to the request for admissions, and

therefore, the answers are conclusive under Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

36(b). The district court did not abuse its discretion by

excluding the evidence.

Second, while Lansdell concedes that the alleged

negligent property damage and theft occurred more than three years

before he filed suit, he contends that Aramark engaged in a

continuing tort or committed acts deserving estoppel to assert the

defense. The district court rejected each of Lansdell’s theories.

The court found that the alleged tortious acts embody clearly

definable, distinct and separate injuries to appellant’s trailers

and thus are not continuing violations. The court also found that

since the ongoing negotiations between Aramark and Lansdell over

these damage claims were not characterized by inequity or fraud,

2 Mississippi law does not permit waiver of the statute of

limitations. Mississippi Dept. of Pub. Safety v. Stringer,

(Miss. 1999). Appellant has furnished us with no

factual or legal basis to disagree with the court’s ruling.

AFFIRMED.

3