1 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 96-31110

Summary Calendar

_______________________

ELEASE BRADFORD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL,

Defendants,

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL

AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE, erroneously sued as Louisiana State

University Medical Center: Human Resources Management,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

New Orleans Division

(96-CV-1484)

_________________________________________________________________ September 17, 1997

Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Elease Bradford, pro se

, brou g ht this suit under Title

VII alleging that she was discriminated against on the basis of

her race and sexually harassed by faculty, staff, and students at2

L ouisiana State University Medical Center. The district court

adopted the recommendation of the mag istrate judge that

Bradford’s federal claims be dismissed for failure to file her

claimwithin 90 days of the receipt of her right to sue letter

from the Equal Employment Oppo rtunity Commission (EEOC). We

affirm.

Bradford received a right to sue letter from t he EEC via

certified mail in May 1994. She filed her complaint on April 30,

1996. Plaintiffs who receive a right to sue letter from the EEC

are required to file t heir complaints within 90 days after

receipt of the letter. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). Plaintiff

contended below that her failure to file a complaint was caused

by neglect or fraud by her attorneys. The magistrate judge

concluded that this was not a ground for equitable tolling of the

90-day rule. See Irwin v. Depart ment of Veterans Affairs , 498

U.S. 89, 95, 111 S.Ct. 453, 457 (1990); R owe v. Sullivan

, 967

F.2d 186, 192 (5th Cir. 1992); Wilson v. Secretary of Veterans

Affairs

, 65 F.3d 402, 405 (5th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, as the

magistrate judge noted, even if attorney neglect was a ground for

equitable tolling, plaintiff waited over 90 d ays after learning

that her attorney never filed a complaint before she filed a

complaint on her own behalf. Plaintiff also claims that the3

emotional damage done to her by the defendant’s harass ment

incapacitated her and has inhibited her efforts to pursue her

complaint. Thus, Bradford argues, barring her claim as untimely

would allow the defendant to benefit from its own wrongdoing.

However, Bradford has not pointed to evidence of how her “posttraumatic stress syndrome” and “severe anxiety” preven t ed her

from pursuing her rights. Bradford has not alleged any

misrepresentation on the part of the defendant which conce aled

her cause of action or caused Bradford to be mislead as to when

it was necessary to file her suit. See Irwin

,, 498 U.S. at 96

n.4, 1 11 S.Ct. at 458. Accordingly, her suit filed over two

years after the receipt of her “right to sue” letter was

untimely.

AFFIRMED.