Court Opinion

ID: 9961883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-20 21:00:28.731703+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:17.665428
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2311      Doc: 5         Filed: 04/19/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-2311

        WANDA LETANG,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        ROBERT L. WILKIE, JR.; DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AGENCY,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00154-GMG-RWT)

        Submitted: April 18, 2024                                           Decided: April 19, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Wanda Letang, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2311      Doc: 5         Filed: 04/19/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Wanda Letang appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint alleging

        discriminatory termination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

        §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (Tile VII), as untimely filed and for failure to state a claim. We have

        reviewed the record and conclude that the district court correctly found that Letang’s

        complaint was untimely and did not relate back, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c), to the previous

        race discrimination action Letang filed within the right-to-sue period identified in the Equal

        Employment Opportunity Commission’s decision upholding her termination. See Bailey v.

        N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 910 F.2d 406, 413 (7th Cir. 1990) (“Rule 15(c), by its terms, only

        applies to amended pleadings in the same action as the original, timely pleading.”). The

        district court also properly found that Letang’s allegations failed to state a plausible claim

        that Appellees terminated her employment because of her race. See Holloway v. Maryland,

        32 F.4th 293, 299 (4th Cir. 2022) (“To state a claim for unlawful termination, a Title VII

        plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to raise a plausible inference that h[er] employer

        discharged h[er] because of h[er] race.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

        We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

        presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

        process.

                                                                                         AFFIRMED

                                                      2