Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50180 Su m m ar y Cal endar T E R R YL U R B IN A , P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t v. U N IT E D P A R C E L S E R V IC E IN C , D efen da n t - A pp el l ee

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 1: 05- C V

- 888 B ef ore R E AV L E Y , D AV IS, an d S M ITH , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * T erry L . U rb i n a ap p ea l s f oll ow i n g th e d i sm i ssa lof h er civilri gh ts c o m pl ai n ta ga i ns the re m pl o ye rc l ai m i ng r ac e a nd g e nde rdi s c r i m i nat i o n a nd r e t a l i a t i o n i n v i o l at i o n o f T i t l e VI I o f

t h e Civ i lRi g h t s Ac to f 1 9 6 4 , 4 2 U. S . C. § 200 0e et seq. , an d the E qu alP ay A ct , 29 U . S . C . § 206(d) . Th e di st ri ctcourt he l d t hatt he c o m pl ai ntw as unt i m e l y, a l l e ge d c l ai m s t hatw e r e une xha us t e d, a n d fa i l ed to state a n E q u a lP a y A ct cl a i m . A ff ord i n g lib era lcon stru cti on to United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 23, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50180

2 U r b in a ’ s p le a d in g s a n d a p p e lla te b r ie f, see Hai ne s v. Kerner , 404 U . S. 519, 520 –21 , 92 S . C t . 594 , 596 ( 197 2) , w e A F F IR M f or t h e f ol l ow i n g reasons: 1. U r bi na fai l e d t o s ho w t hats he pe r fe c t e d s e r vi c e o f pr o c e s s o n a m an aging or generalagen tor ot h er person au t h ori zed t o accept servi ce of p r o c e s s . S eeF ED . R. C IV . P . 4(h ) . B ecau se t h e defau l tj u dg m en tw as not w i l l f u lan d there w as no sh ow i n g of prej u di ce t o U rbi n a, t h e di st ri ctcourt d id n o t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n b ys e tt in ga s id e th e d e fa u lt. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v . O nePar c e lof

Rea lPr o

p. , 7 6 3 F .2d 1 8 1 , 1 8 3 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 5 ). 2. I ti s und i s put e d t hatU r bi na f i l e d he r c o m pl ai nt 92 da ys a f t e rr e c e ivi ng t h e E E O C ’ s ri gh t t o sue noti ce. U rbi n a’ s argu m en t t h at t h e 90-day peri od f orf i l i ng herc om pl ai ntw as t ol l ed be c ause of t w o i nt er veni ng federal hol i days i s w i t hout m er i t . Th e r equi r em ent t o f i l e a l aw sui t w i t hi n t he 90- d a yp e r io d is s tr ic tlyco n s tr u e d a n d is a k in to a s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . S ee T aylorv. B ooks A Mi l l i on , I n c. , 2 9 6 F .3 d 3 7 6 , 3 7 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ); Espi n oza v. Mo. Pac. R . R . Co. , 7 5 4 F .2d 1 2 4 7 , 1 2 5 1 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 5 ). 3. On app e al , U r bi na as s e r t s o nl y c o nc l us o r y c l ai m s o f di s c r i m i nat i o n. Sh e fai l s t o addre ss t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s r eas oni ng t hatherc om pl ai ntw as une xha us t e d b e c aus e i tw e ntb e yo nd t he c har ge s m ad e t o t he EE O C and t h at s h e fai l ed to st ate a cl ai m un der t h e E qu alP ay A ct . Th ose i ssues are th e r e fo r e a b a n d o n e d d u e to in a d e q u a te b r ie fin g . S ee Yohey v . Col l i ns , 985 F .2 d 2 2 2 , 2 2 4 -2 5 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ); B rin k m a n n v. D a lla s Co u n ty D ep u ty S h erif f A bn er , 8 1 3 F .2d 7 4 4 , 7 4 8 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 7 ). AF F I RMED.