Court Opinion

ID: 1000081
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:35:05.902539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:22:44.401410
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

SHARON L. BLOUNT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                         No. 99-1391
DONNA E. SHALALA, Secretary,
Department of Health and Human
Services,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.
(CA-98-874-PJM)

Submitted: October 8, 1999

Decided: October 28, 1999

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges,
and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Karl W. Carter, Jr., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Lynne A. Bat-
taglia, United States Attorney, Roann Nichols, Assistant United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Sharon L. Blount appeals the district court's order dismissing her
employment discrimination action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Blount admitted that she failed to file her administrative complaint
within fifteen days of receiving notice of her right to do so. See 29
C.F.R. § 1614.106(b) (1999). On appeal from the district court's
order, Blount argues that the court erred in finding that the Appellee
did not waive her right to assert her untimely filing as a defense and
that her proffered reasons to excuse her late filing were insufficient.
We have reviewed the briefs and the parties' submissions and find no
reversible error.

We find that the Appellee did not waive her right to assert a timeli-
ness defense by failing to act upon Blount's complaint within 180
days or by accepting the complaint and investigating her claims. See
Bowden v. United States, 106 F.3d 433, 438 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Rowe
v. Sullivan, 967 F.2d 186, 191 (5th Cir. 1992); Boyd v. United States
Postal Serv., 752 F.2d 410, 414 (9th Cir. 1985). We further find that
Blount presented insufficient evidence to excuse her untimely filing
based upon equitable considerations. See Irwin v. Department of Vet-
erans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 95-96 (1990); Zografov v. V.A. Med. Ctr.,
779 F.2d 967, 969 (4th Cir. 1985).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order granting Appel-
lee's motion to dismiss. 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

                    2