Wong v. Secretary United States Department of Homeland Security , 516 F. App'x 148 ( 2013 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 12-2397
_____________
PETER P. WONG,
Appellant
v.
SECRETARY UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
_____________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 2-11-cv-03059)
District Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg
_____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 4, 2013
Before: RENDELL, AMBRO and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: March 19, 2013)
_____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_____________
RENDELL, Circuit Judge
Peter Wong appeals the orders of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania granting the government’s motion to dismiss his complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and denying his motions for
reconsideration. The District Court dismissed Wong’s complaint alleging race, color, and
national-origin discrimination in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. because
Wong had not initiated an equal employment opportunity proceeding within forty-five
days of the alleged discrimination. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1-2). The District Court
concluded that Wong’s lateness was not excused by either equitable tolling or equitable
estoppel. Wong timely appealed.
This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review
over the decision to grant a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, see Weston v. Pennsylvania, 251
F.3d 420, 425 (3d Cir. 2001), and we review the decision to deny a motion for
reconsideration for abuse of discretion, see Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox
Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 163 (3d Cir. 2010).
We have carefully considered the appellate briefs of the parties and the record,
including the memorandum of the District Court. We see no need to expand upon the
District Court’s opinion, which we find to be well reasoned regarding the conclusion that
Wong’s case was brought too late. Accordingly, for substantially the same reasons set
forth by the District Court, we will affirm.
2