* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30259

Summary Calendar

JEANETTE MARIE BOOKER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; KENNETH C. PERRY; MARVIN R. RUNYON,

SR., Postmaster General of the U.S. Postal Service,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Middle District of Louisiana

(95-CV-1684-B)

November 19, 1997

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellant Jeanette Marie Booker (“Booker”) brought

suit pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging

racial and sexual discrimination by her employer, the United States

Postal Service and by her immediate supervisor, Kenneth C. Perry.Defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that Booker’s

suit was time barred. Booker sought to rely on the doctrine of

equitable estoppel or tolling, claiming that she was a pro se

litigant, that she missed the deadline for filing an appeal with

the EEOC because she mistakenly sent her paperwork to the wrong

address, and that the defendants were not prejudiced by her

mistake. The district court found that Booker was represented by

counsel, that her failure to properly file a timely appeal was the

result of attorney negligence and did not justify the application

of the doctrine of equitable tolling. The district court entered

summary judgment for defendants, based on Booker’s failure to meet

various filing deadlines. Booker filed a motion for new trial,

pointing out that although her initial claim was time barred, she

had filed a subsequent claim from which she had timely appealed by

filing suit challenging the Final Agency Dec ision. This second

complaint alleged some of the same issues raised in the initial

c omplaint, with the addition of retaliation and religio u s

discrimination claims. The district court summarily denied the

motion for new trial and this appeal followed.

W e review the grant of summary judgment d e novo. C efalu v.

EBR Parish School Board , 103 F.3d 393, 395 (5th Cir. 1997).

Equitable tolling does not apply where the individual does not

follow advice to preserve his legal rights. B aldwin County Welcome

Center v. Brown

, 466 U.S. 147, 151 (1981). The letters from the

Postal Service and th e EEOC told Booker what she must do topreserve her claim. She failed to follow those instructions.

Booker alleges no misconduct on the part of the Postal Service in

this regard. Therefore, the district court’s grant of summary

judgment for defendants as to the original EEOC claim must be

affirmed.

Booker urges us to reverse the summary judgment because she

filed this action in the district court within ninety days of the

final agency decision on her second adm i nistrative complaint.

There is no indication in Booker’s Complaint or Amended Complaint

in the district court that she sought to challenge the agency’s

second order. Therefore, the summary judgment dismissing the case

as time barred does not speak to the second final agency decision,

as it was not before the court.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the summary judgment for

defendants.

AFFIRMED.