Blount v. Shalala

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT SHARON L. BLOUNT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 99-1391 DONNA E. SHALALA, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-98-874-PJM) Submitted: October 8, 1999 Decided: October 28, 1999 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Karl W. Carter, Jr., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Lynne A. Bat- taglia, United States Attorney, Roann Nichols, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Sharon L. Blount appeals the district court's order dismissing her employment discrimination action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Blount admitted that she failed to file her administrative complaint within fifteen days of receiving notice of her right to do so. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106(b) (1999). On appeal from the district court's order, Blount argues that the court erred in finding that the Appellee did not waive her right to assert her untimely filing as a defense and that her proffered reasons to excuse her late filing were insufficient. We have reviewed the briefs and the parties' submissions and find no reversible error. We find that the Appellee did not waive her right to assert a timeli- ness defense by failing to act upon Blount's complaint within 180 days or by accepting the complaint and investigating her claims. See Bowden v. United States, 106 F.3d 433, 438 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Rowe v. Sullivan, 967 F.2d 186, 191 (5th Cir. 1992); Boyd v. United States Postal Serv., 752 F.2d 410, 414 (9th Cir. 1985). We further find that Blount presented insufficient evidence to excuse her untimely filing based upon equitable considerations. See Irwin v. Department of Vet- erans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 95-96 (1990); Zografov v. V.A. Med. Ctr., 779 F.2d 967, 969 (4th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order granting Appel- lee's motion to dismiss. 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 2