## United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

______________ No. 96-4212

____________ Elizabeth Dunham, as personal * representative for Douglas Dunham, *
* Appellant, *
*
v. *
* City of O’Fallon, Missouri, a * Municipal corporation; Michael * Kernan, individually and in his * official capacity as Police Chief of * the City of O’Fallon, Missouri; * Edward Griesenauer, individually * and in his official capacity as Mayor * of the City of O’Fallon, Missouri; * Board of Alderman of the City of * Appe als from the Unit ed Stat
es O’Fallon, Missouri, by and through * Dist rict Cour t for the its individual members; Dennis Henson, * East ern Dist rict of-2- Miss ouri individually and in his official capacity * as Alderman of the City of O’Fallon, * [UNPUBLISHED] Missouri; Paul Renaud, individually * and in his official capacity as Alderman * of the City of O’Fallon, Missouri; * Henry Dussold, individually and in his * official capacity as Alderman of the * City of O’Fallon, Missouri; Eugene * Moser, individually and in his official * capacity as Alderman of the City of * O’Fallon, Missouri; Cliff Hesskamp, * individually and in his official capacity * as Alderman of the City of O’Fallon, * Missouri; Joe Salemi, individually * and in his official capacity as *-3-

Alderman of the City of O’Fallon, * Missouri; Kenneth Molloy, individually * and in his official capacity as * Alderman of the City of O’Fallon, * Missouri; Rose Mack, individually and * in her official capacity as Alderman * of the City of O’Fallon, Missouri; *
* Appellees. *

____________ No. 97-1430

____________ John Fomera; Christine Fomera, *
* Appellant, *
*
v. *
* City of O’Fallon, Missouri, a * Municipal corporation; Michael * Kernan, individually and in his * official capacity as Police Chief of * the City of O’Fallon, Missouri; * Edward Griesenauer, individually * and in his official capacity as Mayor * of the City of O’Fallon, Missouri; * Board of Alderman of the City of * O’Fallon, Missouri, by and through * its individual members; Dennis Henson, * individually and in his official capacity * as Alderman of the City of O’Fallon, * Missouri; Paul Renaud, individually * and in his official capacity as Alderman * of the City of O’Fallon, Missouri; * Henry Dussold, individually and in his * official capacity as Alderman of the *The Honorable George F. Gunn, Jr., Senior United States District Judge for the 1 Eastern District of Missouri.

-4- City of O’Fallon, Missouri; Eugene * Moser, individually and in his official * capacity as Alderman of the City of * O’Fallon, Missouri; Cliff Hesskamp, * individually and in his official capacity * as Alderman of the City of O’Fallon, * Missouri; Joe Salemi, individually * and in his official capacity as * Alderman of the City of O’Fallon, * Missouri; Kenneth Molloy, individually * and in his official capacity as * Alderman of the City of O’Fallon, * Missouri; Rose Mack, individually and * in her official capacity as Alderman * of the City of O’Fallon, Missouri; *
* Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: September 10, 1997

Filed: September 25, 1997

____________ Before McMILLIAN, ROSS and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

ElizabethDunham, as personal representative for Douglas Dunham, and Joh n and Christine Fomera appeal from final orders entered in the District Court for th e 1 Easte rnDistrict of Missouri granting summary judgment in favor of the City o f O’Fallon and other defendants on their employment discrimination and related claims.-5-

Fomerav. City of O’Fallon , No. 4:95CV00238 (GFG) (E.D. Mo. Dec. 31, 1996 ) (memorandum and order); Dunham v. City of O’Fallon , 945 F. Supp. 1256 (E.D. Mo. 1996).

The district court held that appellants’ employment discrimina tion and retaliation claims we re barred by the applicable 90-day statute of limitations, 945 F. Supp. at 1260-62, cit ing Garfield v. J.C. Nichols Real Estate , 57 F.3d 662, 666 (8th Cir. ) (holding dismissal without prejudice does not toll running of statute of limitations on either federal or state employment discrimination claim), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 380 (1 995). The district court also held that Elizabeth Dunham was bound by th e allegati ons in Douglas Dunham’s original and refiled complaints that he had received a right to sue letter for his age discrimination claim. Id. at 12 61. The district court also hel dthe undisputed facts and applicable law did not support the state law claims fo r intentional infliction of emotional distress and loss of consortium. Id. at 1262-63.

We have care fully reviewed the record and we agree with the analysis of th e district court as set forth i n its well-reasoned memorandum and order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.