Filed: Apr. 18, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1107 THEODORE R. JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES RIVER IRON, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-00-191-3) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 18, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1107 THEODORE R. JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES RIVER IRON, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-00-191-3) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 18, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore R..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1107
THEODORE R. JACKSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JAMES RIVER IRON, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-00-191-3)
Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 18, 2001
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theodore R. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. James LeRoy Banks, Jr.,
MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Theodore R. Jackson appeals the district court’s order grant-
ing summary judgment to James river Iron, Inc. and dismissing his
claim that his discharge violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq. We review a district court’s
grant of summary judgment de novo. See Higgins v. E. I. Dupont de
Nemours & Co.,
863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988). Jackson con-
tends he was discharged on October 27, 1998. He filed a sworn
charge with the EEOC on October 27, 1999. Although Jackson filed
a letter with the EEOC on August 20, 1999, within the 300 day limi-
tations period, the letter was not sworn, therefore, it does not
serve as a “charge.” See Tinsley v. First Union Nat’l Bank,
155
F.3d 435, 439-40 (4th Cir. 1998) (discussing limitations period).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order on the grounds
that Jackson failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by
timely filing a charge with the EEOC. See Edelman v. Lynchburg
College,
228 F.3d 503 (4th Cir. 2000), pet. for cert. filed,
69
U.S.L.W. 3481 (U.S. Apr. 2, 2001) (No. 00-1072). We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2