UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MARY E. HUDSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 95-1311

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CA-94-447-WMN)

Argued: December 6, 1995

Decided: January 16, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and

CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Celicia G. Hoover-Hankerson, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,

for Appellant. Christine Manuelian, Assistant United States Attorney,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Lynne A. Battaglia,

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Mary E. Hudson, asserts a claim for race discrimination

arising from the termination of her employment with the appellee, the

National Security Agency ("NSA"). Following notification that her

employment was about to be terminated, Hudson filed an Equal

Employment Opportunity complaint on February 11, 1987, alleging

race discrimination. On or about October 22, 1993, a final agency

decision (right-to-sue letter) rejecting Hudson's claim was issued. A

copy of that decision was hand delivered to the office of Robert

Bloom, Hudson's attorney, on October 26, 1993.

Hudson received a letter from Bloom dated November 15, 1993,

indicating that an adverse final agency decision had been rendered.

Bloom's letter stated that the right-to-sue letter was enclosed and

informed Hudson that,

if this matter is to be pursued any further, it will be necessary to file suit. Because of my heavy caseload, I am not in

a position to prepare and file a suit . . . . If you wish for me

to identify a lawyer who is in a position to take this case to

trial, please let me know at your earliest convenience.

J.A. at 20. While Hudson claims that there was no enclosure with

Bloom's letter, she acknowledges receiving a copy of the right-to-sue

letter on December 1, 1993. See Appellant's Br. at 6. Hudson filed

suit, pro se, on February 23, 1994, 120 days after her attorney

received the final agency determination.

The right-to-sue letter clearly stated that Hudson had ninety days

from receipt of the decision to file a civil action. First, the letter stated

that, "[i]f you chose to file a civil action, you must do so (1) within

90 calendar days of receipt of this final decision if no appeal to the

 2
EEOC has been filed." J.A at 26. Second, the last sentence of the letter emphasized that, "the civil action MUST BE FILED WITHIN

NINETY (90) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the Commission's decision." J.A. at 27.

Hudson concedes that her claim is untimely, but argues that her

failure to file within ninety days should be excused under equitable

tolling principles. See Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498

U.S. 89, 96 (1990). The district court rejected Hudson's equitable tolling claim and granted NSA's motion to dismiss, reasoning that Hudson alleged no misconduct on the part of NSA and that Hudson, who

acknowledged receiving the right-to-sue letter on December 1, had

"ample time" to file a suit by the January 24, 1994, deadline. See J.A.

at 14-15.

We have carefully considered the arguments raised by both parties.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed on the reasoning of the

district court.

AFFIRMED

 3