Jeremy McMillian v. Mississippi Lime Co. , 311 F. App'x 942 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 08-1176
    ___________
    Jeremy D. McMillian,                     *
    *
    Appellant,                  * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                                 * Eastern District of Missouri.
    *
    Mississippi Lime Co.,                    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellee.                   *
    ___________
    Submitted: February 18, 2009
    Filed: February 26, 2009
    ___________
    Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Jeremy McMillian appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his employment-
    discrimination action against Mississippi Lime Company (MLC). He argues that the
    district court erred in failing to hold a hearing on whether his alleged mental
    incapacity should have equitably tolled the limitations period for filing. We conclude
    the district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing, because McMillian’s
    allegations did not establish a claim for equitable tolling. Cf. Lyons v. Potter, 
    521 F.3d 981
    , 983 (8th Cir. 2008) (when complainant alleges sufficient facts which, if
    1
    The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    taken as true, establish claim of equitable tolling, court must give complainant
    opportunity to submit evidence on issue); see also Coons v. Mineta, 
    410 F.3d 1036
    ,
    1040 (8th Cir. 2005) (equitable tolling is reserved for circumstances truly beyond
    control of plaintiff); Boos v. Runyon, 
    201 F.3d 178
    , 184-85 (2d Cir. 2000) (question
    whether person is sufficiently mentally disabled to justify tolling of limitations period
    is highly case-specific; conclusory and vague claim, without particularized description
    of how condition adversely affected capacity to function generally or in relationship
    to pursuit of rights, is manifestly insufficient to justify any further inquiry into
    tolling).
    Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-1176

Citation Numbers: 311 F. App'x 942

Filed Date: 2/26/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023