|KEVIN P. CHRISTOPHER,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
NEC SPARTAN SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS,
Plaintiff appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because plaintiff appears pro se on appeal, we construe his pleadings liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam). We review a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo, accepting all well-pleaded facts as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Aguilera v. Kirkpatrick, 241 F.3d 1286, 1292 (10th Cir. 2001). "A court should not grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Id. (quotations omitted).
Plaintiff argues on appeal that: (1) his RICO claim was timely because it accrued in 1997, not in 1992; (2) he could have demonstrated standing if he had been allowed discovery to demonstrate a connection between Spartan and the United States; and (3) the district court's dismissal with prejudice as to Spartan will prevent him from recovering from all culpable parties.
We have carefully reviewed the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation in light of the parties' materials and the record on appeal. We find no error, and affirm for substantially the same reasons as those set forth in the magistrate judge's thorough Report and Recommendation.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
*. The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.