Pine, et al v. City of Midland, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
July 8, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-50988
Summary Calendar
EARLEEN PINE; ET AL.,
Plaintiffs
EARLEEN PINE; HOYLE S. KRUSE; DONALD B. DULIN;
PATRICIA A. DULIN; MARY V. RENTON; TENA J. SHEPHERD;
MICHAEL L. SHEPARD; JACK FITTS; JAN FITTS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
versus
CITY OF MIDLAND, also known as City of Midland, Texas;
RICK MENCHACA; GARY SAUNDERS,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. MO-02-CV-112
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The appellants-property owners appeal from the summary
judgment dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims as barred
by the statute of limitations. Applying the same test as the

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-50988
-2-
district court, we affirm. See Deas v. River West, L.P.,
152 F.3d 471, 475 (5th Cir. 1998).
We hold that the district court did not err in its
determination that equitable tolling did not apply in the instant
case and, therefore, that the § 1983 claims were barred by
Texas’s two-year limitations period for personal injury actions.
See Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-50 (1989); Henson-El v.
Rogers, 923 F.2d 51, 52 (5th Cir. 1991). We do not consider
the appellants arguments raised for the first time on appeal
that (1) application of the two-year limitations period is
unconstitutional as applied to their Fifth Amendment takings
claims and (2) fairness mandates the application of the equitable
doctrine of laches. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co.,
183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --