Clark Philogene v. IA2, Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00180-TSE-IDD. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999671041]. Mailed to: Appellant. [15-1549]

Appeal: 15-1549

Doc: 15

Filed: 10/02/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1549

CLARK PHILOGENE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
IA2, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00180-TSE-IDD)

Submitted:

September 17, 2015

Decided:

October 2, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clark Philogene, Appellant Pro Se.
Joon Hwang, Elizabeth Anne
Lalik, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1549

Doc: 15

Filed: 10/02/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Clark

Philogene

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

dismissing with prejudice Philogene’s civil complaint in which
he

asserted

employment

discrimination

claims.

The

district

court found that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the
complaint,

because

Philogene

“failed

to

file

a

charge

of

discrimination as required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) within
the

statutory

period,”

and

failed

to

establish

grounds

for

equitably tolling the applicable 300-day period for filing such
a charge.

See Philogene v. IA2, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-00180-TSE-

IDD, slip op. at 2-3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 24, 2015).
We have previously observed that the “failure to timely
file an EEOC charge . . . does not deprive the district court of
subject

matter

jurisdiction.”

See

Hentosh

Univ., 767 F.3d 413, 417 (4th Cir. 2014).
any ground apparent in the record.

v.

Old

Dominion

But we may affirm on

See United States ex rel.

Drakeford v. Tuomey, 792 F.3d 364, 375 (4th Cir. 2015).

And,

after review, we agree that each act of alleged discrimination
set forth in the complaint took place more than 300 days before
Philogene

filed

his

EEOC

charge.

Accordingly,

Philogene’s

claims are time-barred, see Agolli v. Office Depot, Inc., 548 F.
App’x

871,

875

(4th

Cir.

2013),

court’s order on that basis.

and

we

affirm

the

district

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
2

Appeal: 15-1549

Doc: 15

Filed: 10/02/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3