John Atkins v. Adam Atkins

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-1335 ___________________________ John Louis Atkins lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Adam James Atkins lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of North Dakota - Eastern ____________ Submitted: March 28, 2023 Filed: March 31, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRUENDER, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.

John Atkins appeals the loss of a tort case against his son. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the magistrate judge, 1 sitting by consent of the parties, did not commit reversible error when it dismissed two claims before trial and refused to grant a new trial or amend its judgment on others. See Shell Oil Co. v. Ross, 356 S.W.3d 924, 927, 929–30 (Tex. 2011) (explaining when the fraudulent-concealment doctrine and discovery rule extend a statute of limitations under Texas law); Tex. Bank & Tr. Co. v. Moore, 595 S.W.2d 502, 508 (Tex. 1980) (stating that being a family member “do[es] not, standing alone, establish a fiduciary relationship”). We also conclude that the challenge to the court’s denial of post-judgment relief is not properly before us because Atkins failed to appeal it. See United States v. Mannis, 186 F.3d 863, 864 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam); Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B). We accordingly affirm the judgment.2 See 8th Cir. R. 47B.