Case Name: Theodore R. JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES RIVER IRON, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-04-18
Citations: 7 F. App'x 264
Docket Number: No. 01-1107
Parties: Theodore R. JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES RIVER IRON, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 7
Pages: 264–264

Head Matter:
Theodore R. JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES RIVER IRON, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 01-1107.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 12, 2001.
Decided April 18, 2001.
Theodore R. Jackson, pro se. James LeRoy Banks, Jr., McGuirewoods, L.L.P., Richmond, VA, for appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Theodore R. Jackson appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to James River Iron, Inc. and dismissing his claim that his discharge violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. See Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir.1988). Jackson contends he was discharged on October 27, 1998. He filed a sworn charge with the EEOC on October 27, 1999. Although Jackson filed a letter with the EEOC on August 20, 1999, within the 300 day limitations period, the letter was not sworn, therefore, it does not serve as a "charge." See Tinsley v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 155 F.3d 435, 439-40 (4th Cir. 1998) (discussing limitations period). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order on the grounds that Jackson failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by timely filing a charge with the EEOC. See Edelman v. Lynchburg College, 228 F.3d 503 (4th Cir.2000), pet. for cert. filed, 69 U.S.L.W. 3481 (U.S. Apr. 2, 2001) (No. 00-1072). 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.