UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 97-40185
Summary Calendar
CHARLES SIMMONS; ROLAND CARMEN,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
VERSUS
ROTHE DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
G-95-CV-721
November 28, 1997
Before WISDOM, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles Simmons and Roland Carmen filed suit against their
employer, Rothe Development, Inc., alleging that Rothe
discriminated against them in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The district court granted
summary judgment in Rothe’s favor. Simmons and Carmen now appeal.
We affirm.
First, the plaintiffs argue that the district court improperly
dismissed their Title VII claims on the ground that they were filed
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
more than 90 days after their counsel received right-to-sue letters
from the EEOC. We agree with the district court’s conclusion that
the suit was untimely filed. The 90-day filing period established
by 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1) begins to run on the date that the EEOC
right-to-sue letter is delivered to the claimant or to the offices
of formally-designated counsel for the claimant.2 The
uncontroverted summary judgment evidence shows that the plaintiffs’
attorney filed suit more than 90 days after the right-to-sue
letters issued on behalf of Carmen and Simmons were delivered to
his office. The district court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’
Title VII claims with prejudice.
Second, the plaintiffs argue that the district court abused
its discretion in denying their Motion to Abate and Motion to
Extend Time. In filing these motions, the plaintiffs sought
additional time both to take several depositions and to respond to
the defendant’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment.3 As the
district court noted, however, the plaintiffs failed to offer any
reasonable explanation for not completing enough discovery to
respond adequately to the defendant’s motion.4 Moreover, the
plaintiffs have failed to show how the requested discovery would
have defeated the defendant’s motion. The district court did not
2
Ringgold v. National Maintenance Corp., 796 F.2d 769, 770
(5th Cir. 1986); see also Irwin v. Department of Veteran Affairs,
498 U.S. 89 (1990).
3
The plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims remained outstanding
after the district court dismissed their Title VII claims.
4
The plaintiffs’ attorney did not request a single deposition
until 13 months after suit was filed.
2
abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motions.
Finally, the plaintiffs argue that the district court
improperly granted summary judgment in Rothe’s favor on their 42
U.S.C. § 1981 claims. The plaintiffs’ allegations of
discrimination, however, are inadequate to survive summary
judgment. Rothe satisfied its burden of production by proffering
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its allegedly
discriminatory action.5 The plaintiffs, on the other hand, did not
present compelling evidence to suggest that these reasons were
pretextual.6 There is no genuine issue of material fact in the
record before us that would preclude summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
5
See Olitsky v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 964 F.2d 1471 (5th Cir.
1992).
6
See Singh v. Shoney’s, Inc., 64 F.3d 217 (5th Cir. 1995).
3