statute of limitations^ Plaintiffs assert a number theories to buttress their contention that the district court’s holding with respect to the statute of limitations was in error. Plaintiffs first claim that the district court applied the incorrect statute of limitations; in the alternative, they assert a “continuing violation” theory, a “continuing conspiracy” theory, and a “discovery” theory. 1. Wrong Statute of Limitations The plaintiffs’ claim that the district court applied the wrong statute of limitations is meritless. The plaintiffs cite to two Ohio Court of Appeals decisions which hold that Ohio’s four-year “residual” statute of limitations is the proper statute of limitations in § 1983 eases. See Bojac Corp. v. Kutevac, 64 Ohio App.3d 368, 581 N.E.2d 625, 627 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Weethee v. Roso, 64 Ohio App.3d 532, 582
holding district court erred in relying on authority other than that of the supreme court of the united states in its analysis under  2254d recognizing that prior supreme court precedent to the contrary see patterson v mclean credit union 491 us 164 109 sct 2363 105 led2d 132 1989 was superceded by the 1991 amendments recognizing the supreme court of the united states confirmed that in creating the faa congress principal purpose was ensuring that private arbitration agreements are enforced according to their terms  quoting volt info scis inc v bd of trustees of leland stanford junior univ 489 us 468 478 109 s ct 1248 103 l ed 2d 488 1989 recognizing that the circuits vary in their interpretations of  1915 but noting that neitzke v williams  us  109 sct 1827 104 led2d 338 1989 declined to rule on the preferred approach holding that ohio revcode  230509d is the most logical and appropriate statute of limitations in a  1983 action based on the united states supreme court holding in owens v okure 488 us 235 109 sct 573 102 led2d 594 1989 