IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 96-11153
Summary Calendar
_____________________
OTIS B. CLAYBORNE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY;
ROBERT GEHRMAN; PAULA BURCH;
WHITNEY WOLF; DENNIS HARRIS; MAX J.
MULLENS; BRUCE HINES; TOM MORGAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas
(3:95-CV-1925-R)
_________________________________________________________________
May 13, 1997
Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mr. Otis B. Clayborne, proceeding pro se, filed this
employment discrimination suit against Southwestern Bell Telephone
Company and the above-named employees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-5 ("Title VII"). The United States magistrate judge
granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
Mr. Clayborne had failed to comply with Title VII's limitations
period. Under Title VII, any suit must be filed within ninety days
of the receipt of a right to sue letter. We affirm.
The movant in a motion for summary judgment has the initial
burden of informing the court of the basis for the motion, and
identifying those portions of the summary judgment record that
demonstrates no genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553 (1986). When the
movant satisfies this burden, the non-movant must produce
affirmative evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505,
2510-11 (1986).
In this case, the movant provided United States Postal Service
a "return receipt" that shows Mr. Clayborne had received his right
to sue notice on May 25, 1995. Mr. Clayborne filed this suit on
August 29, 1995, ninety-six days after receiving the right to sue
notice. Because Mr. Clayborne failed to provide the magistrate
judge any affirmative evidence contradicting the authenticity of
the return receipts, nor did he give any justification for excuse
from the ninety-day limitations period, he failed to establish any
genuine issue of material fact. Therefore, summary judgment was
appropriate. The judgment of the magistrate judge is therefore
A F F I R M E D.
2
3