June Fitzpatrick v. Ronald Timmerman ( 2019 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 18-2756
___________________________
June Fitzpatrick
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Ronald Timmerman; Joshua Hayes; Stephen Newport; Dale Heuer
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport
____________
Submitted: March 26, 2019
Filed: March 29, 2019
[Unpublished]
____________
Before ERICKSON, WOLLMAN, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
June Fitpatrick appeals after the district court1 dismissed her 42 U.S.C. § 1983Fourth Amendment claim, and some of her state-law claims, as time-barred; and
1
The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state-law claims.
Upon careful de novo review, we conclude the district court correctly determined that
neither the Iowa discovery rule nor estoppel altered the limitations period, as
defendants’ search of Fitzpatrick’s home would have alerted a reasonable person of
the need to investigate, a reasonably diligent investigation would have revealed that
the search was not authorized by a warrant or court order, and Fitzpatrick’s reliance
on information from defendant Newport was unreasonable. See Humphrey v. Eureka
Gardens Pub. Facility Bd., 891 F.3d 1079, 1081 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard of review);
Skadburg v. Gately, 911 N.W.2d 786, 794 (Iowa 2018) (once plaintiff learns
information that would alert reasonable person of need to investigate, she is imputed
knowledge of all facts that reasonably diligent investigation would have disclosed);
Christy v. Miulli, 692 N.W.2d 694, 702-03 (Iowa 2005) (to estop defendant from
relying on statute of limitations based on fraudulent concealment, plaintiff must
establish by clear and convincing preponderance of evidence, inter alia, that plaintiff
reasonably relied on defendant’s false representation to her prejudice; plaintiff’s
knowledge of pertinent facts and circumstances may affect reasonableness of her
continued reliance on tortfeasor’s representations). Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-2-