John Louis Atkins v. Adam James 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[Unpublished]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

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
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.
______________________________
1 The Honorable Alice R. Senechal, United States Magistrate Judge for the
District of North Dakota, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by
consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
2 We grant the motion seeking to strike an outside-the-record letter, but
otherwise deny the remaining motions.

-- 2 of 2 --