In this diversity action, James Thorn-berg appeals the adverse judgment entered after the district court 1 determined that his complaint was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that Mr. Thornberg’s own complaint, filed in 2014, established that his claims accrued in 1999 and thus were untimely under the applicable six-year statute of limitations. See Strawn v. Mo. State Bd. of Educ., 210 F.3d 954, 957 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review); see also Minn.Stat. § 541.05 subdiv. 1 (six-year statute of limitations for certain civil actions). We note that Mr. Thornberg was not entitled to equitable tolling based on fraudulent concealment, as his complaint showed he was aware of his claims in 1999. See Minn. Laborers Health and Welfare Fund v. Granite Re, Inc., 844 N.W.2d 509, 514 (Minn. 2014) (fraudulent concealment tolls statute of limitations only until party discovers, or has reason to discover, cause of action). We also note that—even assuming he was entitled to statutory tolling based on an impaired mental state—his claims were nonetheless time-barred, as such tolling is limited to five years. See Minn.Stat. § 541.15(a) (limitations period shall be suspended during periods of, inter alia, plaintiffs insanity, provided that such period shall not be extended for more than five years).' Finally, we conclude that the district court properly denied Mr. Thorn-berg’s motion to amend his complaint, and his motion to stay the court’s ruling. See Silva v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 762 F.3d 711, 719-20 (8th Cir. 2014) (court may deny leave to amend when proposed amendments would be futile); see also Toben v. Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC, 751 F.3d 888, 894 (8th Cir. 2014) (to obtain stay of ruling on summary judgment motion, party must file affidavit affirmatively showing how stay will enable him to rebut *579 showing of absence of genuine issue of fact). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.