of the original complaint are not dissipated by the amended complaint.’” Hamilton v. Bean, 745 F.2d 1034, 1036 (6th Cir.1984) (quoting Hohensee v. Akron Beacon Journal Publishing Co., 277 F.2d 359, 360 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 914, 81 S.Ct. 277, 5 L.Ed.2d 227 (1960)). Because the infirmities in the original complaint were not cured by the allegations in the amended complaint, the district court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion to amend. C. The district court held that “the two-year statute of limitations applicable in Section 1983 cases bars any of plaintiffs’ claims which occurred beforé October 21, 1990, two years prior to the filing date.” The plaintiffs assert that this was incorrect and that a four-year statute of limitations is actually the 19, 21 (1989) (<HOLDING>). If this Court had not spoken on this issue,
holding that the limitations period for  1983 actions arising in ohio is the twoyear period found in ohio rev code  230510 and that the limitations period starts to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of his action  holding ohio revcode  230509d is the appropriate statute of limitations in  1983 actions holding that a twoyear statute of limitations period applies to all  1983 actions brought in pennsylvania holding that new york statute of limitations for  1983 actions was three years holding that the appropriate state statute of limitations to borrow for section 1983 actions is that for recovery of damages for personal injuries