Court Opinion

ID: 3174012
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-02-05 08:29:19.022058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:50.895478
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 15-2275
                        ___________________________

                                  Sherry McDaniel

                       lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

                                           v.

                                Kraft Global Foods

                       lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
                                      ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
                                 ____________

                           Submitted: January 13, 2016
                             Filed: February 1, 2016
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, SMITH, Circuit Judges.
                         ____________

PER CURIAM.

     Sherry McDaniel appeals after the district court1 dismissed her Title VII
complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. Upon de novo review, we conclude

      1
      The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
that the dismissal was proper, as McDaniel’s own filings showed that she brought her
lawsuit more than ninety days after receiving a right-to-sue notice from the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, and tolling of the limitations period was not
warranted. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (setting forth 90-day limitations period);
Richter v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., 686 F.3d 847, 851 (8th Cir. 2012) (explaining
application of statute of limitation); Garfield v. J.C. Nichols Real Estate, 57 F.3d 662,
666 (8th Cir. 1995) (discussing equitable tolling); see also Schaaf v. Residential
Funding Corp., 517 F.3d 544, 549 (8th Cir. 2008) (de novo standard of review).

      Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                     ______________________________

                                          -2-