UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, III,
KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Noble R. Mann appeals the district court’s order
granting the Appellee’s motion to dismiss his Title VII
complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). * 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”). 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-5(f)(1) (2006). 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
1995); Victor Foods, Inc. 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) (2007) does not operate to toll a federal
statutory limitations period, Mann’s Title VII complaint was
untimely.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We
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