P u rsua n t t o F ed . R . A p p . P . 4 3 (c)(2), D irk K em p tho rne , G ale A . N o rt o n ’s * su c c e ss o r, h a s b e e n a u to m a tica llysu b stitu ted a s a p a rtyto th is a p p e a l. T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he ** d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e23,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT M AR I L OU B RO WN,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, N o. 05- 6392 v. ( W . D . O kl ahoma) D I R K K E M PT H O R N E , Secr et aryof * t he U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof the Interior, D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. ( D. C. No . CI V- 0 5 - 2 1 1 - R)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T ** B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 34( a) ( 2) ; 10 TH C IR . R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. O n F e b ru a ry2 2 , 2 0 0 5 , M a rilo u B ro w n filed su it i n fe d e ra l d istric t co u rt,- 2-

al l egi ng t hatherform erempl oy er , the U ni t ed St at es Fi s h and W i l dl i fe Servi ce (“ U S F W S ” ), d isc rim in a ted a g a in st h e r in v io latio n o f T itl e V II o f

th e C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f 1 9 6 4 . See 4 2 U . S . C . § 2 0 0 0 e-1 6 (c). T h e d istri ct co u rtg ran ted U S F W S ’s m ot i on t o di s m i s s t he s ui tw i t h pr ej udi ce a ft eri tconcl uded the compl ai ntw as not tim e lyo r su bjec t to e q u itab le to lli n g . T h e c o u rt late r d e n ied h e r m o tio n to r econs i der . M s . B r ow n, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s the di s m i s s al of her c o m p la in t. W e e x e rc is e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffir m . “A fede r al empl oy ee w ho cl ai m s thathe w as the vi ct i m of i l l egal empl oym entdi s cr i m i nat i on m aybr i ng a cl ai m i n di s tr i ctcourtunderT i t l e V I I . ” B e lh o m m e v . Widn a ll , 1 2 7 F .3 d 1 2 1 4 , 1 2 1 6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). “A s a p re re q u isite t o hi s s ui t , t he fe der al empl oy ee mustfi l e an a dm i ni s tr at i ve compl ai ntconce rni ng hi s al l egat i ons , and he maynotbr i ng hi s s ui tm or e than ni netyday s aft er r ece i vi ng a fi nal deci s i on fr om ei therhi s empl oy i ng agenc yorfr om the [Equal E m pl oym entO ppor tuni t yC om m i s s i on ( ‘ E E O C ’ ) ] . ” Id. ; s ee 42 U . S. C . § 2000e1 6 (c ) ( e x p la in in g th e re q u ir e m e n t fo r filin g a c iv il a c tio n w ith in 9 0 d a y s ). Ms . B r o w n w o r k e d a s a fe d e r a l l a w e n fo r c e m e n to ffi c e rfo rth e U S F WS fr om J une 1995 unt i l hert erm i nat i on i n A ugus t1998. She cont ends thats ever al U SFW S supe r vi s or s di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns theron the bas i s of gende r . She fi l ed an admi ni s t r at i ve compl ai ntdet ai l i ng heral l egat i ons . I n l at e 2001, s he r ece i ved a fi n a l a g e n c yd e c i s i o n d i s mi s s i n g th e c h a r g e . On De c e mb e r1 0 , 2 0 0 1 , M s . Br o wn filed a tim e lyc o m p lain t ra isin g h e r T itl e V II c laim in fe d e ra l d istric t co u rt in- 3-

N e v a d a . In A p ril 2 0 0 2 , tha t ca se w a s tra n sfe rre d to fe d e ra l d istric t co u rt in O kl ahoma. O n J une 26, 2002, M s . B r ow n fi l ed anothercompl ai nti n fede r al d istri ct co u rtin O k laho m a b ase d o n the s am e a ll eg ati o n s; th e c ase s w ere cons ol i dat ed. O n February23, 2004, both par t i es s i gned a St i pul at i on of D i s m i s s al of the ca s es w i t houtpr ej udi ce. O n February22, 2005, M s . B r ow n r efile d h e r c o m p la in t, w h ic h is th e s u bje c t o f th is a p p e a l. Af t e ra c a r e f

u l r e v i e w o f

t h e p a r t i e s ’ b r i e fs a n d th e r e c o r d o n a p p e a l , we aff i r m t he di s m i s s al of M s . B r ow n’ s s ui tfors ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame r eas ons as s et fo rth in the d istri ct co u rt ’s ord er. T h e statute o f li m it ati o n s b arred M s. B row n ’s r e- fi l ed compl ai nt , w hi ch w as cl ear l ynotfi l ed w i thi n 90 day s of herr ece i ptof the fi nal agenc ydeci s i on. “[T] he fi l i ng of a c om pl ai ntthati s di s m i s s ed w i thout p reju d ic e d o e s n o t to ll th e s ta tu to ry filin g p e ri o d o f T itle V II .” B r ow n v. Ha r ts h o r n e P u b . Sc h . D is t. No . 1 , 92 6 F . 2d 95 9, 96 1 (10th C i r. 19 91 ). W e al so agr ee w i t h t he courtt hatequi t abl e t ol l i ng i s notw arr ant ed. M s . B r ow n has pr es ent ed no evi dence t o s uppor theras s er t i on thats he w as m i s l ed t o bel i eve he r c a se w o u ld b e tim e lyif re -filed w ith in o n e y e a r. F in a lly , M s. B ro w n c a n n o t re ly on O kl ahoma’ s s avi ngs s t atut e, O kl a. St at . t i t . 12, § 100, t o avoi d the 90- day s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . T he s t at e’ s s avi ngs s t atut e i s notappl i cabl e t o fede r al c la im s . Br o wn , 9 2 6 F .2 d a t 9 6 1 .- 4-

A c c o rd in g ly, w e A F F IR M th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt, R o b ert H . H en ry C i r cui tJ udge