Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Moore v. Bellsouth Telecom, 01-30983 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 01-30983 Visitors: 10
Filed: Feb. 07, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-30983 Summary Calendar LUTHER D MOORE, JR Plaintiff - Appellant v. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS INC; COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA, Local #3411 Defendants - Appellees - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport USDC No. 01-CV-1068 - February 7, 2002 Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff-appellant waited almost three y
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-30983 Summary Calendar LUTHER D MOORE, JR Plaintiff - Appellant v. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS INC; COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA, Local #3411 Defendants - Appellees -------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport USDC No. 01-CV-1068 -------------------- February 7, 2002 Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff-appellant waited almost three years after he left his job to file an EEOC charge of age discrimination. The EEOC dismissed the charge because it was not filed within the time limit required by law. Plaintiff-appellant then filed suit in the district court. When the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge was issued, the plaintiff-appellant was given an opportunity to set forth in his objections to the Report and Recommendation any facts not mentioned in his complaint that he contended provided grounds for equitable tolling. He failed to * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 01-30983 -2- do so, and the district court dismissed his complaint as time- barred. We have reviewed his brief, and we find there no reason to disturb the district court’s judgment. The judgment of the district court is 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