Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Harold Staton v. Newport News Cablevision (Nncv) (Formerly Hampton Roads Cablevision), 85-1036 (1985)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 85-1036 Visitors: 5
Filed: Aug. 05, 1985
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 769 F.2d 200 Harold STATON, Appellant, v. NEWPORT NEWS CABLEVISION (NNCV) (formerly Hampton Roads Cablevision), Appellee. No. 85-1036. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted April 16, 1985. Decided Aug. 5, 1985. Harold Staton, pro se. John P. Connors, Washington, D.C., for appellee. Before RUSSELL, WIDENER, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: 1 Harold Staton appeals the dismissal of his race and sex discrimination suit filed against Newport News Cablevision, Inc. for lac
More

769 F.2d 200

Harold STATON, Appellant,
v.
NEWPORT NEWS CABLEVISION (NNCV) (formerly Hampton Roads
Cablevision), Appellee.

No. 85-1036.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 1985.
Decided Aug. 5, 1985.

Harold Staton, pro se.

John P. Connors, Washington, D.C., for appellee.

Before RUSSELL, WIDENER, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Harold Staton appeals the dismissal of his race and sex discrimination suit filed against Newport News Cablevision, Inc. for lack of jurisdiction. The district court dismissed Staton's action because it was not timely filed within ninety days as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(f)(1). While Staton had been issued a right to sue letter on July 25, 1984, he did not file suit in district court until November 13, 1984, one hundred and eleven days later. Although Staton contends that he submitted his complaint on November 1, 1984 and that an administrative error caused the untimely filing, we find no evidence in the record to substantiate his contention. Staton admits that he received the right to sue letter on or about August 1, 1984 and the complaint was filed November 13, 1984. We, therefore, affirm the dismissal of Staton's action for failure to timely file his complaint which defeats the jurisdiction of the district court.

2

Accordingly, because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively, we dispense with oral argument and affirm the judgment of the district court.

3

AFFIRMED.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer