UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL G. RADIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 95-2007

MARVIN RUNYON, Postmaster

General, U.S. Postal Service,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge.

(CA-94-969-A)

Submitted: April 17, 1997

Decided: April 30, 1997

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Michael G. Radin, Appellant Pro Se. Rachel Celia Ballow, Margaret

Ann Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Michael G. Radin, an employee of the United States Postal Service,

filed an action alleging employment discrimination due to a disability,

under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 791, 794a (1994), and in

retaliation for making previous complaints of discriminatory treatment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16

(1994). After a hearing, the district court granted summary judgment

to the employer because it found that Radin had failed to timely file

suit within ninety days of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's ("EEOC") final decision notifying him of his right to sue

within ninety days and because the court found no grounds meriting

the application of the doctrine of equitable tolling. For the reasons

that follow, we affirm.

A discrimination claimant who fails to file suit within the ninetyday statutory time period mandated by Title VII* generally forfeits

the right to pursue his claim. See Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v.

Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 150-52 (1984). Although the ninety-day time

period is subject to equitable tolling, one who fails to act diligently

cannot invoke equitable principles to excuse lack of diligence. Id. at

151. We have held that the actual receipt of the right to sue letter is

_________________________________________________________________

*Rehabilitation Act claims against government employers utilize Title

VII's procedural scheme. See 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(1) (1994) (the Rehabilitation Act utilizes the remedies, procedures and rights available to

claimants of federal job discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16

(1994)). Section 2000e-16(c), in turn, requires claimants to file a court

action within 90 days after the EEOC's issuance of a final action, notifying claimant of his right to sue). See also Spence v. Straw, 54 F.3d 196,

199-200 (3d Cir. 1995) (holding that a suit under the Rehabilitation Act

is exclusive means by which a plaintiff may raise such a claim against

a federal agency and that the claim must comply with Title VII's exhaustion and filing procedures).

 2
not necessary to trigger the limitations period, because to do so would

allow for manipulation of the limitations period. See Watts-Means v.

Prince George's Family Crisis Ctr., 7 F.3d 40, 42 (4th Cir. 1993)

(delivery of a notice to pick up a certified letter at the post office triggers the ninety-day limitations period--not the date when the letter is

actually picked up); Harvey v. City of New Bern Police Dep't, 813

F.2d 652, 654 (4th Cir. 1987) (ninety-day period began when wife

received letter--not six days later when she informed claimant of letter).

At a hearing on Defendant's motion to dismiss, it was uncontested

that Radin did not timely file suit after the EEOC's issuance of a final

decision, clearly notifying him of his right to file a court action within

ninety days. Radin's only defense at the hearing was that he "did not

receive the decision in regards to this matter directly but only

received a copy from my representative." Radin made no allegation

that he received a copy of the decision in an untimely manner or otherwise present the court with facts meriting the application of equitable tolling. Thus, the district court granted the Defendant's motion to

dismiss.

We find that the district court conducted a thorough hearing and

correctly found no grounds which would require equitable tolling of

the filing period. See Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498

U.S. 89, 96 (1990) (noting that principles of equitable tolling do not

generally extend to garden variety claims of excusable neglect);

Baldwin County Welcome Ctr., 466 U.S. at 151.

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3