Carter v. Runyon ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-1168
    CHANA R. CARTER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MARVIN T. RUNY0N, JR., Postmaster General,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
    trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.
    (CA-98-44-3)
    Submitted:   July 6, 1999             Decided:   September 13, 1999
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Sa’ad El-Amin, Beverly D. Crawford, EL-AMIN & CRAWFORD, Richmond,
    Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney,
    Joan E. Evans, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Vir-
    ginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Chana Carter appeals from the magistrate judge’s order* dis-
    missing her employment discrimination action under Fed. R. Civ. P.
    12(b)(1), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.    On appeal, she
    argues that the district court erred in finding that her employer
    was not equitably estopped from asserting that her claims were
    time-barred.   We have reviewed the briefs and the joint appendix
    and find no reversible error. Carter failed to contact a counselor
    within forty-five days of the alleged discriminatory act, see 
    29 C.F.R. § 1614.105
    (a)(1) (1999), and has shown no basis for the
    equitable tolling of the limitations period.   See Irwin v. Depart-
    ment of Veterans Affairs, 
    498 U.S. 89
    , 95-96 (1990); Olson v. Mobil
    Oil Corp., 
    904 F.2d 198
    , 201 (4th Cir. 1990).        Accordingly, we
    affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge.   We dispense with
    oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
    ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    *
    The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a
    magistrate judge pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c)(1) (1994).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-1168

Filed Date: 9/13/1999

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021