2013 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

3-19-2013 

# P et e r W on g v . S ecr et a r y U nit ed S t a t es D ep a r t

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 12-2397

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2013 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" P e t e r W on g v . S e cr e t a r y U

nit e d S t a t e s D e p a r t " (2013). 2013 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 1109. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013/1109

### NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 12

- 2397

_____________ PETER P. WONG, Appellant

v. SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

_____________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 2

- 11

- cv - 03059 ) District Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg

_____________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 4, 2013 Before: RENDELL, AMBRO and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges (Opinion Filed: March 19, 2013 )

_____________ OPINION OF THE COURT

_____________ RENDELL, Circuit Judge Peter Wong appeals the orders of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granting the government’s motion to dismiss his complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and denying his motion s for

### 2 reconsideration. The District Court dismissed Wong’s complaint alleging race, color, and national

- origin discrimination in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq . because Wong had not initiated an equal employment opportunity proceeding within forty

- five days of the alleged discrimination. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1

- 2). The District Court concluded that Wong’s lateness was not excused by either equitable tolling or equitable estoppel. Wong timely appealed. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . W e exerc ise plenary review over the decision to gra nt a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, s ee Weston v. Pennsylvania , 2 51 F.3d 420, 425 (3d Cir. 2001), and we review the decision to deny a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion, see Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP , 615 F.3d 159, 163 (3d Cir. 2010)

. We have carefully considered the appellate briefs of the parties and the record, including the memorandum of the District Court. We see no need to expand upon t he District Court’s opinion, wh ich we find to be well reasoned regarding the conclusion that Wong’s case was brought too late

. Accordingly, for substantially the same reasons set forth by the District Court, we will affirm.