Noble Mann v. Standard Motor Products, Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for abeyance (Local Rule 12(d)) [999133754-2], denying Motion for abeyance (Local Rule 12(d)) [999128855-2] Originating case number: 3:13-cv-00068-JRS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999149647]. Mailed to: Mann. [13-1514]

Appeal: 13-1514

Doc: 17

Filed: 07/15/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1514

NOBLE R. MANN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STANDARD MOTOR PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:13-cv-00068-JRS)

Submitted:

July 1, 2013

Decided:

July 15, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Noble R. Mann, Appellant Pro Se.
Joseph Dale Wilson,
KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

III,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1514

Doc: 17

Filed: 07/15/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Noble
granting

the

R.

Mann

appeals

the

Appellee’s

motion

to

district
dismiss

complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). *

court’s
his

order

Title

VII

This court reviews de

novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Philips v.

Pitt Cnty. Mem’l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 179-80 (4th Cir. 2009).
A claimant who fails to file a complaint within the
ninety-day statutory time period mandated by Title VII generally
forfeits his right to pursue his claims.

See Baldwin Cnty.

Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 149-51 (1984).

The ninety-

day period begins as of receipt of the right-to-sue letter from
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).
§ 2000e-5(f)(1) (2006).

42 U.S.C.

The ninety-day statute of limitations

period for Title VII actions is not tolled because the initial
action was dismissed without prejudice.

See O’Donnell v. Vencor

Inc., 466 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2006); Price v. Digital
Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 1026, 1027 (5th Cir. 1988).

When the

plaintiff voluntarily dismisses a lawsuit governed by a federal
statutory limitations period, the state savings statutes do not
apply.

Beck v. Caterpillar Inc., 50 F.3d 405, 407 (7th Cir.

*

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e et seq.

2

Appeal: 13-1514

Doc: 17

1995);

Victor

Filed: 07/15/2013

Foods,

Inc.

Pg: 3 of 3

v.

Crossroads

Econ.

Dev.

of

St.

Charles Cnty., Inc., 977 F.2d 1224, 1227 (8th Cir. 1992) (state
savings statute did not toll federal limitations period).
Mann’s right-to-sue letter issued by the EEOC is dated
July

16,

2010.

Mann’s

complaint

was

filed,

the

earliest,

January 26, 2012, or clearly beyond the statutory ninety-day
limit.

Because Virginia’s savings statute under Va. Code Ann.

§ 8.01-229(E)(3)
statutory

(2007)

limitations

does

period,

not

operate

Mann’s

to

Title

toll

VII

a

federal

complaint

was

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

We

untimely.

deny Mann’s motion to place the appeal in abeyance.

See 50 App.

U.S.C.A. § 522(b)(2)(A), (B) (West Supp. 2013).

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3