Howard v. United States Army , 307 F. App'x 765 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-1510
    LYNN HOWARD,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES ARMY, c/o Secretary of the Army,
    Defendant – Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
    Judge. (1:06-cv-00783-GBL)
    Submitted:    October 30, 2008              Decided:   January 20, 2009
    Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Douglas Steinberg, Alexandria, Virginia; George R. Royer,
    Toledo, Ohio, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States
    Attorney, Monika L. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Lynn Howard appeals from the district court’s order
    granting the United States Army’s motion to dismiss his Title
    VII,    of    the   Civil     Rights    Act       of   1964,   as     amended,    and       Age
    Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) claims and dismissing
    his complaint in its entirety without leave to amend to add
    state law tort claims and claims under the Equal Pay Act.                                    On
    appeal,      Howard   argues     that    the      district      court    erred        in   part
    because it dismissed his action based on failure to file his
    Title    VII    and     ADEA    claims    within         the    ninety-day       statutory
    deadline.       He also alleges that the court erred in dismissing
    his action without permitting him to amend his complaint to add
    Equal Pay Act and state law tort claims.                        Finding no error, we
    affirm.
    We conduct a de novo review of the dismissal of a
    complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6).                              Etape v.
    Chertoff, 
    497 F.3d 379
    , 382 (4th Cir. 2007).                            We may affirm a
    district court’s judgment on any ground supported by the record.
    Suter    v.    United    States,   
    441 F.3d 306
    ,    310    (4th     Cir.    2006).
    After    reviewing      the    record,    the          parties’      briefs,    the        joint
    appendix and supplemental joint appendix, we affirm the district
    court’s judgment for the reasons stated by the district court.
    See Howard v. US Army, No. 1:06-cv-00783-GBL (E.D. Va. Apr. 27,
    2007).
    2
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal    contentions   are   adequately   presented    in   the    materials
    before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-1510

Citation Numbers: 307 F. App'x 765

Judges: Agee, Gregory, King, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 1/20/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023