Case Name: Elizabeth ORPHEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JEFFERSON PARISH HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 1, Doing Business as West Jefferson Medical Center, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-18
Citations: 247 F. App'x 582
Docket Number: No. 07-30465
Parties: Elizabeth ORPHEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JEFFERSON PARISH HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 1, Doing Business as West Jefferson Medical Center, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, M. SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 247
Pages: 582–583

Head Matter:
Elizabeth ORPHEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JEFFERSON PARISH HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 1, Doing Business as West Jefferson Medical Center, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 07-30465
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 18, 2007.
Elizabeth Orphey, pro se.
Peter J. Butler, Jr., Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, LL & E Tower, New Orleans, LA, Peter J. Butler, Law Office of Peter J. Butler, Gretna, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before REAVLEY, M. SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Elizabeth Orphey appeals the dismissal of her employment discrimination suit as time-barred. She acknowledges that she had 90 days from September 22, 2006, in which to sue; she sued on December 22, 2006, which was the 91st day. Her only justification for avoiding the 90-day bar is that Thanksgiving Day, which occurred during the 90-day period, should not be counted.
There is no legal support for Orphey's position. The 90-day provision is strictly construed, and Orphey does not contend otherwise. See Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 379 (5th Cir.2002) (suit filed three days late); Ringgold v. Nat'l Maint. Corp., 796 F.2d 769, 770 (5th Cir.1986) (per curiam) (two days late); Espinoza v. Mo. Pac. R.R., 754 F.2d 1247, 1251 (5th Cir.1985) (same). There is no provision for excluding holidays that fall within the period of days to be counted.
The judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.