*The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to the

applicable rules. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of

orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and

conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 4/19/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

BEN NWOSUN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GENERAL MILLS RESTAURANTS,

INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 95-6375

(D.C. No. CIV-95-912-T)

(W. District of Oklahoma)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, McKAY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Pro se plaintiff, Ben Nwosun, appeals from summary judgment granted defendant

on his Title VII claim. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17. In his complaint, Nwosun

alleged that General Mills discriminated against him because of his race, citing a number

of incidents of unfair behavior, culminating in his January 4, 1993 discharge from the Red

Lobster restaurant at which he worked as a laborer. Nwosun filed a charge with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission on November 22, 1994. The EEOC issued

Nwosun a Right to Sue letter on May 2, 1995, and Nwosun filed a complaint in the
- 2 -

district court for the Western District of Oklahoma the following month.

The district court granted defendant summary judgment because it was undisputed

that Nwosun brought his claim more than 300 days after his discharge. An aggrieved

person must file a charge with the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged unlawful

employment practice. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). The court also determined that

Nwosun’s claim was not saved by the “continuing violation doctrine” because he alleged

no discriminatory act occurring within 300 days of the date he filed his charge with the

EEOC. See Mascheroni v. Board of Regents, 28 F.3d 1554, 1561 (10th Cir. 1994) (to

establish continuing violation doctrine plaintiff must allege a series of discriminatory acts,

at least one of which falls within the limitations period). The only event Nwosun pointed

to in support of a claim of a continuing violation was that defendant took his deposition in

connection with another employee’s workers’ compensation claim. While it is unclear

from the record whether this event took place within 300 days of filing his charge, there is

absolutely no indication that the deposition constituted a discriminatory act. The district

court correctly granted summary judgment. 

On appeal, Nwosun also alleges that his attorney violated his Sixth Amendment

rights by negligently or intentionally failing to file the Title VII claim within time, and

that a conspiracy exists between his attorney and others to deny him his constitutional

rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We generally do not address claims brought for

the first time on appeal, Walker v. Mathers (In re Walker), 959 F.2d 894, 896 (10th Cir.
- 3 -

1992), and, in any event, neither of these claims involves defendant.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero

Circuit Judge