Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02966/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02966-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michelle Denise Lingo
Appellant
John Potter
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2966

___________

Michelle Denise Lingo, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

John Potter, Postmaster General, *

United States Postal Service, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 29, 2006

Filed: October 3, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michelle Denise Lingo appeals the district court’s1

 grant of United States

Postmaster General John E. Potter’s motion to dismiss her Title VII employmentdiscrimination lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We conclude

dismissal was proper because the complaint and attached exhibit indicated that Lingo

contacted an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) counselor more than forty-five

days after the discriminatory actions alleged in her complaint; the pleadings did not

Appellate Case: 05-2966 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2006 Entry ID: 2095704
-2-

assert a basis for the delay; and Lingo did not respond to the motion to dismiss, which

raised the timeliness issue. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a) (2005) (stating Title VII 45-

day requirement and exceptions); Burkett v. Glickman, 327 F.3d 658, 660 (8th Cir.

2003) (holding employment-discrimination claim was barred where record revealed

discriminatory event did not occur within 45 days preceding consultation with EEO

counselor). We decline to consider the tolling arguments Lingo presents for the first

time on appeal. See Briley v. Carlin, 172 F.3d 567, 571 (8th Cir. 1999). Accordingly,

we affirm the district court except that the judgment shall be modified to indicate that

the dismissal is without prejudice.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2966 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/03/2006 Entry ID: 2095704