Case Name: D. Troy SHIPP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-09-26
Citations: 669 F. App'x 15
Docket Number: 15-3908
Parties: D. Troy SHIPP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 15–15

Head Matter:
D. Troy SHIPP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
15-3908
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
September 26, 2016
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: D. Troy Shipp, pro se, Bridgeport, CT.
FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: No appearance.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
D. Troy Shipp, pro se, appeals from the district court's sua sponte dismissal as untimely of his complaint alleging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
We review de novo a district court's sua sponte dismissal of a complaint as untimely under the applicable statute of limitations. See McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004); Brown v. Parkchester S. Condos., 287 F.3d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 2002).
In order to pursue a Title VII claim in federal court, a plaintiff must file his federal complaint within 90 days of receipt of his EEOC right-to-sue letter. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l). The complaint concedes that Shipp received his right-to-sue letter in September 2014, yet he did not file his complaint until September 2015. Nothing in the record or Shipp's arguments on appeal suggests that his claim should be equitably tolled. See Smith v. McGinnis, 208 F.3d 13, 17 (2d Cir. 2000); Johnson v. Nyack Hosp., 86 F.3d 8, 12-13 (2d Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, and finding no merit in Shipp's other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.