Aрpellant William Doenz appeals from the order which denied his motion to file a second amended complaint.
We affirm.
ISSUES
Doenz presents the following issues for our review:
I.
Whether the Second Amended Complaint should bе denied, and Civil Action No. C 91-3-96 be dismissed by Summary Judgment or by the District Court’s last Order?
II.
Whether Sheridan County Board of County Commissioners, Sheridan County, Wyoming, h[as] immunity from damages arising from filing and failing to timely dismiss C 412-10-94?
III.
Whether Cоnstitutional guarantees were violated when the Sheridan County Board of County Commissionеrs, Sheridan County» Wyoming, filed and maintained C 412-10-94; including the United States and Wyoming Constitutions and W.S. § 1-26-516 Inverse Condеmnation?
IV.
Whether 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is applicable?
FACTS
Appellee Sheridan County Board of County Commissioners (Sheridan County) filed a petition for a declaratory judgment in an effort to resolve a dispute over the use of a road known as East Lane. Doenz was named in the action and filed a mоtion for a partial summary judgment, alleging that he possessed an easement of rеcord for the use of East Lane. The district court granted Doenz’s motion, finding that he held an express easement for ingress and egress purposes.
Doеnz responded with a motion to file an amended complaint in an attempt to assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At the hearing to consider this motion, Doenz advanced a clаim for inverse condemnation under Wyo. Stat. § 1-26-516 (1997). The district court denied Doenz’s motion to amend his complaint to allege a § 1983 claim but gave him the opportunity to file a sеcond proposed amended complaint to properly assert an inverse condemnation action.
Doenz thereafter filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and attached a copy of the proposed complaint. Instead of precisely alleging an inverse сondemnation claim, Doenz’s proposed complaint asserted a slandеr of title claim along with other claims which had already been decided by the district сourt. The district court denied Doenz’s motion, and Doenz appeals from that ordеr.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We will reverse the denial of a motion to amend a pleading only when the district court has abused its discretion.
Herbel v. S.K. Wood Company,
DISCUSSION
Although Doenz presents sеveral issues for our review, most of them pertain to orders that Doenz did not appeal from. The only issue properly before this Court is whether the district court correctly denied Doenz’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. We, therefore, will limit our discussion to that issue.
The district court gave Doenz the oрportunity to file a second amended complaint to assert an inverse cоndemnation cause of action under § 1-26-516. That statute provides:
When a person possessing the power of condemnation takes possession of or damagеs land in which he has no interest, or substantially diminishes the use or value of land, due to activities on adjoining land without the authorization of the owner of the land or before filing an аction of condemnation, the owner of the land may file an action in district court seeking damages for the taking or damage and shall be granted litigation expenses if damages are awarded to the owner.
Section 1-26-516.
In his appeal to this Court, Doenz has fаiled to accurately apply the statute to the facts of this case to еstablish how the prescribed activities set out in the statute relate to his situation. Although hе attempts to do so by resorting to arguments already disposed of by the district court, he did not appeal from those rulings, and we, therefore, will not review them. He, consequently, has not satisfied his burden of establishing that the district court abused its discretion.
Affirmed.