# Brown v. Dollar

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · March 8, 2005

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1015666

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 8, 2005
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1015666

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1952

TOJUANNA BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DENNIS DOLLAR, Chairman, National Credit Union
Administration,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CA-04-122)

Submitted: February 28, 2005 Decided: March 8, 2005

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tojuanna Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Tojuanna Brown appeals the district court’s order

granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss her employment

discrimination action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, as amended. We find that the district court correctly

dismissed the action on the ground that Brown failed to timely

exhaust her administrative remedies by contacting an EEO counselor

within forty-five days of the alleged discriminatory event. 29

C.F.R. § 1614.105(a) (2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district

court’s order. See Brown v. Dollar, No. CA-04-122 (E.D. Va. filed

June 1, 2004 & entered June 2, 2004) (dismissing for the reasons

stated from the bench). 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

- 2 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1015666. Public record. Not legal advice.