UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

AMANDA J. MALVEAUX,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CITY OF DUNN; DUNN POLICE

DEPARTMENT; KENNETH M. SILLS,

No. 99-1434

Police Chief,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

BOBBY EARL MAYNARD,

Defendant.

AMANDA J. MALVEAUX,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BOBBY EARL MAYNARD,

Defendant-Appellee,

No. 99-1541

and

CITY OF DUNN; DUNN POLICE

DEPARTMENT; KENNETH M. SILLS,

Police Chief,

Defendants.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.

James C. Fox, District Judge.

(CA-98-172-7-F)

Submitted: December 16, 1999

Decided: December 30, 1999
Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Terry Terrell Zick, LAW OFFICES OF TERRY TERRELL ZICK,

Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald B. Gillespie, Jr.,

Keith D. Burns, FAISON & GILLESPIE, Durham, North Carolina;

Maranda J. Freeman, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, L.L.P.,

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Amanda J. Malveaux appeals the

district court's dismissal of her employment discrimination action

against the City of Dunn, Dunn Police Department, and Kenneth M.

Sills (No. 99-1434); and Bobby Earl Maynard (No. 99-1541), in

which she raised claims based on violations of Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (1994). The district court

dismissed the suit because Malveaux failed to file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

("EEOC") within 180 days of the date of the alleged unlawful

employment practice. It is on this ground alone that Malveaux

appeals, claiming that she had 300 days, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-5(e), in which to file her charge with the EEOC.

 2
We agree with the district court that Malveaux's action is timebarred. The aggrieved person is required to have filed a charge with

the EEOC within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory act or within

300 days of the alleged discriminatory act if state or local proceedings

were initiated. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) (1994); Beall v. Abbott

Labs., 130 F.3d 614, 620 (4th Cir. 1997). The failure to file a timely

complaint with the EEOC bars the claim in federal court. See

McCullough v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 35 F.3d 127, 131 (4th

Cir. 1994).

It is undisputed that December 17, 1996, the date of Malveaux's

termination, is the date of the last alleged unlawful employment practice. A review of Malveaux's complaint and its exhibits reveals that

she filed her charge with the EEOC on August 21, 1997, almost 250

days after she was terminated. Malveaux does not allege, nor does the

record reflect, that she initially filed a complaint with a State or local

agency with authority to grant or seek relief from the discriminatory

practices she alleges, such that the enlargement of the filing period to

300 days would apply to her case. Nor can she point to any discriminatory action that took place within 180 days of the date she filed her

charge with the EEOC.

Accordingly, Malveaux's failure to file a timely charge of discrimination was fatal to federal jurisdiction and requires us to affirm the

district court's dismissal of her action. We dispense with oral argument on these appeals because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3