Gal-Or v. Boeing Company , 202 F. App'x 341 ( 2006 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
November 28, 2006
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
BENJAM IN GAL-O R,
Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 06-3203
v. (D.C. No. 05-CV-1312-M LB)
THE BOEIN G COM PANY, (D . Kan.)
Defendant-Appellee.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before K ELLY, M cK AY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs
without argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Appellant Benjamin Gal-Or, an Israeli citizen and resident of Florida who
is proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The district court initially dismissed all of
Appellant’s claims as time barred, with one exception: the district court construed
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
the complaint to allege a valid patent infringement claim. Boeing Company
(“Boeing”) filed a motion for reconsideration in w hich it alerted the district court
to Appellant’s express denial of such a claim in his response to Boeing’s motion
to dismiss. Based on a review of Appellant’s response, the district court agreed
and granted the motion for reconsideration, fully dismissing the case with
prejudice. This appeal followed.
W e conduct de novo review of a district court’s application of statutes of
limitation. See Nelson v. State Farm M ut. Auto. Ins. Co., 419 F.3d 1117, 1119
(10th Cir. 2005).
Despite confusing and irrelevant protestations to the contrary, Appellant
has provided no basis for disagreement with the district court’s detailed
application of the various statutes of limitation to Appellant’s nine causes of
action. Our review of the complaint, the parties’ briefs, and the district court’s
opinion convinces us that the district court correctly applied the proper statute of
limitation to each of the claims in determining that those claims were time barred.
Appellant’s assertion that the district court’s decision arises from discriminatory
animus due to his status as a foreigner is w ithout merit.
Our review of Appellant’s response to Appellee’s motion to dismiss as w ell
as Appellant’s briefs on appeal confirms that Appellant does not assert a claim for
patent infringement. As Appellant notes, no patents were involved in this case
because Appellant filed only a patent application and never actually pursued it
-2-
through to secure a patent. Indeed, Appellant states that he “refrain[ed] from
filing patents based on Boeing’s promises.” (A ppellant Br. at 18.)
Accordingly, for substantially the same reasons as cogently explained in the
district court’s memorandum and order on the motion to dismiss as w ell as its
memorandum and order on the motion for reconsideration, we AFFIRM the
district court’s dismissal of the entire complaint with prejudice.
Entered for the Court
M onroe G. M cKay
Circuit Judge
-3-