IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41352

Summary Calendar

DAWN MOORE-AHMED,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

JOHN MCHUGH, Secretary of the Army, Department of the Army,

Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:14-CV-14

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dawn Moore-Ahmed appeals the district court’s dismissal of her Title VII 

discrimination claims. The district court granted Appellee’s motion to dismiss

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) based on a conclusion that 

Moore-Ahmed’s civil complaint was not filed within ninety calendar days of her 

receipt of a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 14, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-41352 Document: 00513004710 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2015
No. 14-41352

Commission, as required by statute.1 It is undisputed that the complaint was 

stamped as “filed” by the district court clerk and entered into the official docket 

on October 9, 2013, two days after the statutory limitation period expired.

“Courts within this circuit have repeatedly dismissed [such] cases . . . .”2

Moore-Ahmed’s sole argument on appeal is that we should treat the 

complaint as having been filed on October 7, 2013, within the limitation period, 

because she purports that the district court clerk physically received it on that 

date. Our court has recognized “the widely accepted definition that a ‘paper is 

filed when it is delivered to the proper official and by him received and filed.’”3

We have also held that in some circumstances, “when [a complaint] is in the 

custody of the clerk within the time required by statute, [it] has been ‘filed’ 

within the requisite time despite the clerk's failure to actually ‘file’ [it].”4 In 

this case, however, the district court expressly determined that Moore-Ahmed 

failed to establish that the complaint had been delivered to the clerk on 

October 7 to overcome the “clear record of the [October 9] filing date” evidenced 

in the docket and on the face of the complaint itself. Moore-Ahmed’s argument 

is thus unavailing.

Having considered Moore-Ahmed’s brief, the record, and the applicable 

law, we conclude that the district court correctly granted Appellee’s motion to 

dismiss. Appellee’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED and the 

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Appellee’s alternative motion for 

an extension of time to file a merits brief is DENIED as unnecessary.

1 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f); see Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188, 1191 (5th 

Cir. 1992).

2 Bowers v. Potter, 113 F. App’x 610, 612 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); see, e.g., 

Taylor v. Books A Million, 296 F.3d 376, 379-80 (5th Cir. 2002).

3 Carillo v. Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 559 F.3d 377, 381 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting 

United States v. Lombardo, 241 U.S. 73, 76 (1916)) (emphasis added). 4 Hernandez v. Aldridge, 902 F.2d 386, 388 (5th Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original) 

(citing Ward v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 265 F.2d 75, 80 (5th Cir. 1959)).

2

 

 Case: 14-41352 Document: 00513004710 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2015