Document Info

DocketNumber: 01-1878

Citation Numbers: 25 F. App'x 122

Judges: Wilkins, Motz, King

Filed Date: 12/26/2001

Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024

  •                            UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    BETTY J. BIRCH,                          
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    F. WHITTEN PETERS, Acting                          No. 01-1878
    Secretary of the Department of the
    Air Force,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.
    W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge.
    (CA-01-54-7-BR)
    Submitted: November 30, 2001
    Decided: December 26, 2001
    Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Ernest J. Wright, WRIGHT LAW FIRM, Jacksonville, North Caro-
    lina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Anne
    M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, R. A. Renfer, Jr., Assis-
    tant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    2                           BIRCH v. PETERS
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Betty J. Birch appeals the district court’s order granting the Appel-
    lee’s motion and dismissing her employment discrimination action as
    untimely. We have reviewed the joint appendix and briefs on appeal
    and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of
    the district court.
    A claimant who fails to file a complaint within the ninety-day stat-
    utory time period mandated by Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)
    (1994), and the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(e) (1994), generally forfeits
    her right to pursue her claims. See Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v.
    Brown, 
    466 U.S. 147
    , 149-51 (1984). Relying on the North Carolina
    Rules of Procedure, N.C.R. Civ. P. 41(a), Birch contends on appeal
    that her voluntary dismissal of a previous suit tolled the statute of lim-
    itations and permitted her one year from the date of dismissal to file
    her current action.
    Where, as here, the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses a lawsuit that
    was brought in federal court, asserted a purely federal claim, and was
    subject to a federal statute of limitations, state savings statutes do not
    apply. See Beck v. Caterpillar Inc., 
    50 F.3d 405
    , 407 (7th Cir. 1995);
    see also Brown v. Hartshorne Pub. Sch. Dist., 
    926 F.2d 959
    , 961
    (10th Cir. 1991). Consequently, the statute of limitations was not
    tolled, and the district court properly dismissed Birch’s action.
    The district court’s judgment is hereby affirmed. We dispense with
    oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
    presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED