FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 20, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 34 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cv -0 18 50 -WSD BERENDER D. GRIFFITH, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us METROPOLITAN ATLAN TA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY (MARTA), a Geo rg iaCo rp or at io n, PHYLIS LEE, In di vi du al ly andas M ARTA Direc to r of th e Tran si ti on al Em

pl oyee Pro gr am , MARC WALTHOUR, In di vi du al ly andas t he Dis ab il it y Adju st er III forMARTA, joi nt ly andSev eral ly, PAULA M. NASH, In di vi du al ly andas t he Ch ie f of Lit ig at io n a ndAdm in is tra ti on forMARTA, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 20 , 20 11 )Befo re TJ OFLAT, W ILSON an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM: App el la ntBere nd er D. Grif fit h i s a f orm er em pl oyee of Met ro po li ta n Atl an taRap idTran si t Au th or it y (“ MARTA”). Sh e se ek s re li ef ag ai ns t M ARTA un de r se ve ral fed eral st atut es , bu t p rimaril y Tit le II o f th e Am eri can s wi th Dis ab il it ie s Act(“ ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12 13 1 et seq . andSect io n 5 04 of the Reh ab il it at io n Act , 29 U.S.C. §§ 70 1- 79 7. The d is tri ctco urt, i n i ts ord er o f 1 Sep be m be r 9, 2 00 9,g ran ti ng MARTA’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o n t he pl ead in gs , de sc rib edGriff

it h’s s itua ti on th us ly: Thi s i s a c as e in whi ch Pla in ti ff ex pe rie nc eda ba ckin jury, un de rwen t su rg ery, an d t he n a gg rav at edhe r in jury, cau si ng he r to be ab se ntfro m workat . . . MARTA b eg in ni ng in Apri l 2 00 2. Pl ai nt iff fai le d t o p ro vi de . . . MARTA with t he requi si te pro of

of h er i njury

be gi nn in g i n S ep te m

be r 20 03 an d app aren tl y

di d n ot ex pr es s a d es ire or i nt en ti on to return t o wo rk– s he si m pl y was abs en t fr om

he r job an d o utof t ou ch ev en th ou gh . . . MARTA ad vi se d h er o f he r ob li ga ti on to subm itanup da te d p ro of

of h er m ed ic al co nd it io n fr om he r ph y si ci an ev ery two week s. Warne d t ha t s he wou ldbe term in at edif s he di d n otpro vi de th e in fo rm at io n

Griff ith, who is black, also see ks relief under 42 U .S.C. § § 1981 and 1985(3) for rac ial 1 discrimination. The district court f ound these c laims to be baseless. We agree .

2he r em

pl oyer requi red , Pla in ti ff d idno t re sp on d t o . . . MARTA’s reque stforpro of of he r m ed ic al co nd it io n a nd , in 20 04 , sh e was term in at ed . Three y ears lat er, an d fiv e an d o ne -h al f y ears aft er t he ag gr av at io n o f he r in jury, Pl ai nt iff

to ld. . . MARTA th atsh e was read y to return t o wo rkan d i ns is te d s he be gi ve n ali gh t du ty j ob . MARTA in fo rm edPla in ti ff t ha t i t d idno t h av e a l ig htdu ty pos it io n av ai labl e. A y ear l at er, Pl ai nt iff de m an de d t ha t . . . MARTA reo pe n aworkcen te r itha d c lo se d a ndpro vi de he r wit h apo si ti on an d re as on ab le acco m m od at io n. MARTA rem in de d P la in ti ff t ha t s he ha d b een term in at edan d i nf orm edhe r th ata po si ti onwas n otav ai labl e fo r he r. Pla in ti ff’s la wsu it. . . al le ge s t ha t . . . MARTA’s refu sa l t o re hi re h er t hr ee years af te r sh e was term in at edforcau se vi ol at edth e Am eri can wit h Di sabi li ti es Act [a ndth e Reh ab il it at io n Act ] an d co ns ti tu te d ra ci al di sc riminat io n. Grif fit h app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t o n t he pl ead in gs . Her bri ef, ho wev er, ex cep t fo r co nc lu so ry ass ert io ns of e rro r, m ak es no sp eci fic m en ti on of he r cl ai m s an d s ay s n ot hi ng as t o h ow t he co urt erred . W e d o c on si de r on e p oi nt—wh et he r th e st atut e o f li m it at io ns ba rs Griff it h’s ADA andReh ab il it at io n Actcla im s. Th e g en eral fed eral rul e is th ata cau se of act io n “ wil l n otaccrue , andth ereb y setth e li m it at io ns clo ckrun ni ng , un ti l t he pl ai nt iff [ ] kn ow[ s] or s ho ul d kno w (1) th at[sh e] ha[s ] su ffer edth e in jury that 3fo rm s t he ba si s o f [h er] com pl ai ntan d (2 ) who ha s i nf li ct edth e in

jury.” Ch ap

pe ll v. Rich , 34 0 F .3d12 79 , 12 83 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . Georg ia ’s two y ear s ta tu te of l im it at io ns for pe rs on al in

jury acti on s ap pl ie s t o d is cri m in at io n cl ai m s b ro ug htun de r Tit le II o f th e ADA andth e Reh ab il it at io n Act . Ever et t v. Co bb Cn ty . Sch . Dis t. , 13 8 F .3d14 07 , 14 09 -1 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) ; se e Ga.Co de Ann . § 9 -3 -3 3. The st atut e o f li m it at io ns ba rredGriff it h’s ADA an d R eh ab il it at io n c la im s th atMARTA co ns tru ct iv el y di sc ha rg edhe r an d fa il edto pro vi de he r wit h reas on ab le acco m

m od at io ns in Marc h 2 00 7, b ecau se MARTA di sc ha rg edhe r in Mar ch20 04 for

he r work ru le vi ol at io ns , th ereb y ren de rin g h er i ne li gi bl e fo r reh ire un de r it s p ol ic ie s, an d Gri ffi th fai le d t o fi le su itun ti l fo ury ears lat er i n Apr il 20 08 . AFFIR MED. 2

Griff ith appeals the district judg e’s r efusa l to recuse . We fine no merit in the appe al. 2 We likewise find no merit in her c halleng e to the district cour t’s denial of he r motions for re lief under F ed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b). 4