GRAHAM v. FORSYTH COUNTY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

RACHAEL G. GRAHAM )

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 1:25-cv-00007

)

v. )

)

FORSYTH COUNTY, ) By: Michael F. Urbanski

) Senior United States District Judge

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 10.

Defendant asks the court to dismiss plaintifPs Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)

claims as time barred. For the reasons stated below, defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No.

10, is GRANTED.

I, Background

Plaintiff Rachael G. Graham was hired by defendant Forsyth County (“the County”)

as a tax auditor for the Forsyth County Tax Administration Office on July 11, 2016. Compl.,

ECF No. 1 §[ 1. In late 2017, plaintiff began suffering from health issues that qualified as

disabilities, “[s]pecifically ... fibroids, low iton binding capacity anemia, and degenerated discs

in her spine.” Id. 4] 13. Plaintiffs health issues caused a variety of symptoms which impacted

her ability to drive, a component of her job. Id. 4] 16. Plaintiff submitted her Family Medical

Leave Act (“FMLA”) medical documents to the County in July 2020, outlining her health

conditions and necessary accommodations, which were met until plaintiffs manager left her

position toward the end of 2020. Id. {[§] 16-17.

In Februaty 2021, plaintiff resubmitted her FMLA paperwork at the request of the

County, following which Human Resources (“HR”) contacted plaintiff and asked that she

submit formal ADA accommodation documentation. Id. J] 18-19. Plaintiff met with her

doctor, who believed the FMLA paperwork and accommodations therein would be sufficient.

Id. {| 20. Plaintiff attempted to contact HR and did not receive a response. Id. Plaintiff reached

out to her manager, who informed her that she needed to speak to HR. Id. { 21. Plaintiff

continued taking FMLA leave as necessary and there was no further discussion regarding her

accommodations at that time. Id. § 22.

Beginning in February 2021, the County’s Tax Director, John Burgiss, and Senior Tax

Manager, Brianna Collins, would sit in the cubicles adjacent to plaintiffs cubicle and would

monitor plaintiffs daily activities. Id. | 41. In the following months, Ms. Collins would

monitor the length and frequency of plaintifPs restroom breaks and report the information to

HR. Id. § 43.

Beginning in June 2021, plaintiff was directed to attend weekly meetings with Mr.

Burgiss and Ms. Collins—meetings that no other tax auditor was required to attend. Id. □□ 23.

Plaintiff was not under any improvement plan and had no performance related issues when

these meetings were mandated. Id. 4] 23. At one of the weekly meetings, plaintiff was asked

about her use of bereavement leave and was further asked to provide documentation that the

leave was permitted under the bereavement policy, a requirement that plaintiff believes no

other tax department employee was obligated to perform. Id. {[§| 24—25.

In July 2021, Ms. Collins “tripled plaintiffs work quota volume while maintaining the

same deadlines for completion.” Id. {] 44. Ms. Collins and an HR member also repeatedly

questioned plaintifPs coworkers on their relationship with plaintiff throughout July 2021,

which created a “hostile environment.” Id. § 47.

On July 12, 2021, plaintiff experienced a medical episode while driving, following

which the County rescinded previously granted accommodations.! Id. {] 26. Plaintiff was asked

to go home tather than work in the office. Id. {| 27. The next day, when plaintiff was again

asked to go home rather than work in-office, she reached out to HR, which reiterated its

request for formal documentation of ADA accommodations. Id. {| 27-29. Thereafter,

plaintiff submitted the formal accommodation tequest in which her doctor indicated that she

be given flexibility in her schedule so that she could avoid driving when she had flare ups of

her medical symptoms. Id. {{f] 30-31. The County rejected plaintifPs accommodations request,

at which time plaintiff proposed alternative accommodations, which the County also rejected.

Id. {{f] 32-35. On September 3, 2021, the County required plaintiff to either accept a demotion

ot be terminated from her employment and stated that driving was an essential part of the job.

Id. {[{[ 36-37. The County had never documented driving as essential prior to plaintiff's request

for accommodations. Id. 4] 52. This demotion halved plaintiffs salary and her new position

eliminated her eligibility for raises, benefits, and participation in the North Carolina Retirement

System. Id. {| 39.

Plaintiff originally filed her discrimination claims in Guilford County Superior Court

on December 22, 2022, 90-days? following her receipt of the Right-to-Sue letter from the

' The complaint does not outline which accommodations were rescinded following this incident.

* The actual time between receipt of the Right-to-Sue letter and the state complaint was 93 days, and

no information was provided on this timeline in either the federal or state complaint. See ECF No.

1; ECF No. 15. The 3-day gap may be attributable to the “mailbox rule” of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. See Wright v. Hertford Cnty. Bd. Educ., No. 2:23-CV-30-D, 2024 WL 85926, at *6

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Compl., ECF No. 1 6. Plaintiff

transferred the case to Forsyth County Superior Court in Match 2023. Id. J 8. Plaintiff

voluntarily dismissed her state court action on January 8, 2024. Id. { 9.

Plaintiff filed her federal complaint in this matter on January 7, 2025, 365 days

following the dismissal of her state action, asserting claims for discrimination in violation of

the ADA, failure to accommodate in violation of the ADA, and hostile work environment in

violation of the ADA. Id. {J 58-74. Plaintiff seeks judgment for lost wages and benefits,

injunctive relief, an order for plaintiff's reinstatement,> compensatory damages, attorney’s fees,

and any other relief the court deems just and proper. Id. at 14.

Defendant Forsyth County moved to dismiss the federal complaint on March 3, 2025.

Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 10. The County seeks dismissal of plaintiffs claims, stating that

plaintiffs suit is barred under the 90-day statute of limitations. Mem. Supp. Def.’s Mot.

Dismiss, ECF No. 11 at 5 (hereinafter “MTD”). Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition on March

17, 2025. Pl.’s Resp. Opp’n. Def.’s Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 12 (hereinafter “Opp.”). Plaintiff

attached three exhibits to her opposition: a set of emails regarding plaintiff's former counsel

withdrawing, ECF No. 12-1, a motion to withdraw filed by her former counsel, ECF No. 12-

2, and a letter from plaintiff's prior counsel discussing the voluntary dismissal from state court,

ECF No. 12-3, The County filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss on Match 31,

n. 1 (B.D.N.C, Jan. 8, 2024) (“Although the old section (e) in Rule 6 no longer exists, courts still

apply the three-day mailbox rule in Rule 6(d) to the 90 day EEOC filing period.”).

> The federal complaint asks for plaintiffs reinstatement, or in the alternative, front pay and benefits

in an appropriate amount. Compl., ECF No. 1 at 14. The federal complaint does not specify whether

the reinstatement refers to plaintifPs previous position or to her employment; however, the state court

complaint asks for reinstatement to plaintiffs previous position. See ECF No. 15 at 8.

2025. Def.’s Reply Supp. Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 13 (hereinafter “Reply”). A hearing on the

motion to dismiss was held on June 24, 2025. During the heating, the court asked plaintiffs

counsel to file on the docket the original state court complaint filed in Guilford County, which

counsel then filed. See ECF No. 15. The court takes judicial notice of the state court complaint

pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

II, Standard of Review

Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6). See ECF No. 10. A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency

of the complaint. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999). To survive

a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

(quotation omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged.” Id. “But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer

more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not

‘shown’—that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. at 679; see also Simmons v. United Mortg.

& Loan Invest., 634 F.3d 754, 768 (4th Cir. 2011) (“On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint

must be dismissed if it does not allege enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible

on its face.”) (quotation and emphasis omitted).

A court must consider all well-pleaded allegations in a complaint as true, see Albright

Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268 (1994), and must construe factual allegations in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff, see Lambeth v. Bd. of Comm’ts, 407 F.3d 266, 268 (4th Cir. 2005).

Nevertheless, a court is not requited to accept as true “a legal conclusion couched as a factual

allegation,” Papasan y. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986), conclusory allegations devoid of any

reference to actual events, see United Black Firefighters v. Hirst, 604 F.2d 844, 847 (4th Cir.

1979), or “allegations that are merely conclusory, unwattanted deductions of fact ot

unreasonable inferences.” Veney_v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal

quotation marks omitted). ““Thus, in reviewing a motion to dismiss an action pursuant to Rule

12(b)(6), a court must determine whether it is plausible that the factual allegations in the

complaint are enough to raise a tight to relief above the speculative level.”” Monroe v. City of

Charlottesville, 579 F.3d 380, 386 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Andrew v. Clark, 561 F.3d 261, 266

(4th Cir. 2009)).

III, Motion to Dismiss

Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that plaintiffs claims were

barred by the 90-day statute of limitations set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and should

not be subject to equitable tolling. See MTD at 3. Defendant argues that plaintifPs complaint

was filed outside the statute of limitations and the claim is time-barred. MTD at 5-6; see also

Meridian Inv., Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mort. Corp., 855 F.3d 573, 577 (4th Cir. 2017) (“A

defendant’s claim that an action is time-barred is an affirmative defense that it can raise in a

motion to dismiss when the face of the complaint includes all necessary facts for the defense

to prevail.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). The County cites unpublished case law from

the Fourth Circuit to support its claim. MTD at 6-8. Plaintiff raises three arguments in

response: first, that because there is a lack of binding precedent, the state court and plaintiff

could not have reasonably anticipated that voluntary dismissal in state court would not toll the

statute of limitations; second, that the Reverse Erie doctrine applies such that the court may

apply a North Carolina statute to save plaintiff's claim; and third, that the court should apply

equitable tolling based on the statements made by the state court. Opp. at 5-6. The court

addresses each argument in turn.

A. Tolling of Statute of Limitations

Plaintiff argues that the statute of limitations should be tolled because the lack of

published or precedential cases did not sufficiently inform plaintiff of the time-barting effect

her voluntary dismissal would create. Opp. at 5. However, the Fourth Circuit has held that the

statute of limitations is not tolled for EEOC Right-to-Sue complaints that are voluntarily

dismissed. See Angles v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 494 F. App’x 326, 239 (4th Cir. 2012) (“A

Title VII* complaint that has been filed but then dismissed without prejudice does not toll the

90-day limitations petiod.”) (unpublished); Aziz v. Orbital Scis. Corp, 165 F.3d 17, 17 (4th Cir.

1998) (“A dismissal without prejudice does not toll the statutory period for filing an action.”’)

(unpublished). While these cases are not precedential, they are persuasive that a voluntary

dismissal does not toll the statute of limitations for an ADA claim.

Plaintiff further argues that, because there is no binding precedent regarding the

application of state savings statutes to federal claims, plaintiff could not have known the North

Carolina savings statute would not apply. Opp. at 6. However, the Fourth Circuit has denied

the use of a state savings clause to toll federal claims. See Birch v. Peters, 25 F. App’x 122, 123

(4th Cir. 2001) (“Where [...] a plaintiff voluntary dismisses a lawsuit that was brought in federal

* References to Title VII precedent for the purpose of the ADA are proper “[b]ecause the ADA echoes

and expressly refers to Title VII, and because the two statutes have the same purpose ... courts have

routinely used Title VII precedent in ADA cases.” Fox v. GMC, 247 F.3d 169, 176 (4th Cir. 2001).

court, asserted a purely federal claim, and was subject to a federal statute of limitations, state

savings statutes do not apply.”) (unpublished); Stokes v. Pullen, 122 F.3d 1062, 1062 (4th Cir.

1997) (similar) (table); see also Crain v. Gaston Cnty. Bd. of Educ., No. 3:15-CV-00188-GCM,

2015 WL 6449413, at *3-4 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 23, 2015) (finding that “[b]ecause the ADA’s

statute of limitations is a matter of federal law, the North Carolina procedural rule [the savings

statute] is not applicable to [plaintiffs] claims”); McDowell v. Valley Health Sys., No. 5:25-

CV-00002, 2025 WL 1456273, at *3-5 (W.D. Va. May 21, 2025) (dismissing Title VII claims

as time-barred as Virginia’s nonsuit tolling statute did not apply “because Congress has

prescribed a statute of limitations for ‘Title VII claims”). While these cases ate not binding,

their analyses ate comprehensive and persuasive in showing that a state savings statute does

not apply to a federal claim in federal coutt.

Here, plaintiff received her Right-to-Sue letter on September 20, 2022, and filed the

present action on January 7, 2025, more than two years later. As her voluntary dismissal did

not toll the 90-day period and the state savings statute does not apply to federal claims in

federal court, the present suit is untimely.

B. Reverse Erie

Plaintiff argues that, under the Reverse Erie doctrine, her state court filing used state

procedural law, was dismissed under state procedural law, and was refiled under state

procedural law, and thus state procedural law should govern the claim even if she refiled in

federal court. Opp. at 6—7. Reverse Erie is a doctrine requiring that, where state substantive

law is applied in admiralty and maritime cases, the substantive state law does not conflict with

substantive federal law such that the cases should have similar results. See Offshore Logistics,

Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U.S. 207, 223 (1986) (“[T]he extent to which state law may be used to

remedy matitime injuries is constrained by a so-called ‘reverse-Erie’ doctrine which requites

that the substantive remedies afforded by the States conform to governing federal maritime

standards.”); Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewatt, 253 U.S. 149, 161-62 (1920) (finding that

states cannot enact legislation that would materially interfere with maritime law). Plaintiff relies

upon Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988), to argue this point; however, this case is inapposite

to her claim. Felder does not allow state procedure to govern but instead states that “where

state courts entertain a federally created cause of action, the federal right cannot be defeated

by the forms of local practice.” Felder, 487 U.S. at 138 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Reverse Erie doctrine is inapplicable to the present case.

C. Whether Equitable Tolling Should Apply

Finally, plaintiff argues that equitable tolling is warranted due to statements made by

the state court and plaintifPs former counsel at the time of plaintiffs state court dismissal.

Opp. at 7. Equitable tolling is a doctrine by which a plaintiff may toll the statute of limitations

for an action which she has pursued but has, for some extraordinary reason, been prevented

from filing timely. Arellano v. McDonough, 598 U.S. 1, 6 (2023). It is presumed that any non-

jurisdictional federal statute of limitations is subject to equitable tolling. Irwin v. Dep’t Veteran

Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 95-96 (1990). However, the application of equitable tolling is rare, and

the Fourth Circuit has emphasized the guarded nature with which to approach equitable

tolling, leaving it only for extraordinary circumstances beyond plaintiffs control. See Harris v.

Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2000) (“[A]ny invocation of equity to relieve the strict

application of a statute of limitations must be guarded and infrequent, lest circumstances of

individualized hardship supplant the rules of clearly drafted statutes.”). ‘To apply equitable

tolling “a plaintiff must establish (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2)

that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.”

Edmonson v. Eagle Nat’l Bank, 922 F.3d 535, 548 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting from Menominee

Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States, 577 U.S. 250 (2016)).

The diligence required for equitable tolling is a reasonable effort to pursue one’s claims

despite the obstacles. See Williams v. Garland, 59 F.4th 620, 636 (4th Cir. 2023) (a plaintiff

must “demonstrate, based on the totality of the circumstances, that he made a ‘reasonable’

effort to pursue his claims in the face of extraordinary obstacles standing in his way”); Holland

v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 653 (2010) (“The diligence requited for equitable tolling purposes is

reasonable diligence, not maximum feasible diligence.”) (internal quotations omitted); see also

Hinton v. Cheney, 9 F.3d 1543, 1543, 1993 WL 460651, *4 (4th Cir. 1993) (affirming denial

of equitable tolling on issues of diligence where plaintiff filed suit in the wrong forum, did not

appeal the dismissal from the forum and waited an additional period of time before filing in

the correct forum) (table).

Even if a plaintiff can show reasonable diligence, she must also show that there were

extraordinary citcumstances outside of her control that led to her late filing. Edmonson, 922

F.3d at 549. Courts have defined extraordinary circumstances as those entirely outside of

plaintiff or counsel’s control and not due to any negligence from the plaintiff or counsel. See,

e.g., Harris, 209 F.3d at 331 (“[A] mistake by a partty’s counsel in interpreting a statute of

limitations does not present the extraordinary circumstance beyond the party’s control where

equity should step in.”); Crabill v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 423 F. App’x 314, 322

10

(4th Cir. 2011) (“[A] plaintiff should not lose the Right-to-Sue because of fortuitous

circumstances or events beyond her control.”) (table). For example, in Ish v. Arlington County

Virginia, 918 F.2d 955 (4th Cir. 1990), plaintiff filed her pro se complaint on the final day of

the Right-to-Sue period but court staff instructed her to delay paying the filing fee until her in

forma pauperis application was ruled on. The next day the magistrate judge denied plaintiffs

application, and plaintiff returned to the court and paid the filing fee, making her filing fall

outside of the statute of limitations. Id. at 955. The district court equitably tolled the “90-day

statute of limitations in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e—5(f)(1) to exclude any time after [plaintiff] first

appeared” to file her complaint. Id. The Fourth Circuit affirmed this aspect of the district

coutt’s grant of equitable tolling, stating “[t]he facts in this case seem to be exactly the type

suitable for [] equitable tolling.” Id. Similarly, in Coleman v. Talbot County Detention Center,

242 BF. App’x 72 (4th Cir. 2007), plaintifPs counsel had requested that the Right-to-Sue letter

be sent to him. Id. at 73, Plaintiff thereafter moved residences. Id. The Right-to-Sue letter was

then sent to plaintiffs previous address but with no copy sent to plaintiffs counsel, even

though the EEOC operations manual “directed that a copy be sent to a party’s attorney if an

appropriate request had been made.” Id. Plaintiff's counsel requested a new Right-to-Sue letter

and timely filed the complaint in accordance with the reissued letter, but the district court held

that the suit was untimely. Id. The Fourth Circuit reversed, finding that the late filing was the

fault of the EEOC for not sending the letter to plaintiffs counsel and that such a failure

warranted equitable tolling. Id. at 74.

Here, plaintiff fails to demonstrate that equitable tolling should apply. Though

plaintiffs filing of her state and federal actions within the statutory timeframes plaintiff

11

believed she had supports plaintiffs claim that she pursued her rights diligently, see

Edmondson, 922 F.3d at 548, plaintiff filed both actions on the final available day of each time

period—the 90 and 365" day, respectively—which can undercut plaintifPs argument for

diligence. See Hinton, 9 F.3d 1543, 1993 WL 460651 at *4. Even if the court were to find that

plaintiff has pursued her claims diligently, the court cannot apply equitable tolling as plaintiff

has not established extraordinary circumstances. See Edmondson, 922 F.3d at 548.

Plaintiffs primary argument for equitable tolling is that the state court judge and

plaintiffs prior counsel advised plaintiff that if plaintiff dismissed her state court action, she

would have one year to refile. See Opp. at 5-6, 7-8. Plaintiff introduces this argument in her

opposition brief to defendant’s motion to dismiss and attaches three documents in support of

her argument. See id. Plaintiff attached an email exchange with plaintiffs prior counsel and

the state court, a motion to withdraw that plaintiffs prior counsel filed in state court, and a

letter from plaintifPs prior counsel to plaintiff following counsel’s withdrawal. See Pl. Ex. A,

ECF No. 12-1; Pl. Ex. B, ECF No. 12-2; Pl. Ex. C, ECF No. 12-3.

‘When a defendant attaches a document to its motion to dismiss, ‘a court may consider

it in determining whether to dismiss the complaint [if] it was integral to and explicitly relied

on in the complaint and [if] the plaintiffs do not challenge its authenticity.”” Am. Chiropractic

Ass’n v. ‘Trigon Healthcare, Inc., 367 F.3d 212, 234 (4th Cir. 2004) (quoting Phillips v. LCI

Intl Inc., 190 F.3d 609, 618 (4th Cir.1999)). Although plaintiffs attached exhibits provide

context for the procedural history of this case, they are not integral to or relied upon by the

complaint. Therefore, the court ordinarily ought not consider the information presented

therein. See Southern Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc. v. OpenBand_at

12

Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 184 (4th Cir. 2013) (“It is well-established that patties cannot

amend theit complaints through briefing or oral advocacy.”).

However, even if the court considered the information presented in plaintiffs

attachments, that information would not persuade the court that equitable tolling was

appropriate. PlaintifPs Exhibit A and Exhibit B demonstrate that plaintiffs prior counsel

withdrew as attorney of record in plaintiffs state court case. See Pl. Ex. A, ECF No. 12-1; Pl.

Ex. B, ECF No. 12-2. In her January 5, 2024, motion to withdraw, plaintiffs prior counsel

suggests that she withdrew because “[p]laintiff has lost confidence in the undersigned.” Pl. Ex.

B, ECF No. 12-2. In an email to a state court staff member on January 5, 2024, plaintiff states

that she “did not have any discussion regarding lack of confidence prior to [plaintiffs prior

counsel] submitting the Motion to Withdraw” to the court. Pl. Ex. A, ECF No. 12-1 at 1. In

the same email chain, plaintiffs prior counsel provides the state court staff member with

plaintiffs “motion to withdraw” with filename “N. Quinn Letter — Dismissal Without

Prejudice.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff does not include in Exhibit A the attachment plaintifPs prior

counsel sent. See id. PlaintifPs Exhibits A and B demonstrate that plaintiffs prior counsel

withdrew as plaintifPs counsel, but do not otherwise demonstrate extraordinary

circumstances.

Plaintiffs Exhibit C is a letter from plaintiffs prior counsel to plaintiff dated January

8, 2024. See Pl. Ex. C, ECF No. 12-3. In the letter, plaintiffs prior counsel states:

It was good to see you in Court today so that I could hand you the notice of dismissal

without prejudice that you authorized me to file. Under the totality of circumstances, I

still believe this was the correct decision.

As Judge Atkins stated, this creates a chance to tefile and reboot within one year of

today’s date. This will give you time to retain another attorney.

13

Id. Plaintiff argues that Exhibit C demonstrates that plaintiffs prior counsel and the state court

judge advised plaintiff that she had one year to refile. See Opp. at 7-8. Plaintiffs Exhibit C

does not demonstrate that the state court judge, or plaintiffs prior counsel, advised plaintiff

that she had one year to refile in federal court, which is where plaintiff filed the instant suit.

Exhibit C is not a transcript of the hearing before the state court, and is not persuasive in

demonstrating of what plaintiff was advised by the state court. Thus, though Exhibit C does

indicate that plaintiff was advised by her prior counsel that she had one year to refile, it makes

no distinction between the timing to refile in state court or bring a new federal action. As such,

Exhibit C is insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to warrant equitable

tolling in this federal lawsuit.

Because the court finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated that there wete

extraordinary citcumstances such that equitable tolling would be appropriate, the court must

dismiss plaintiffs complaint on statute of limitations grounds. The court therefore GRANTS

defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 10.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 10, is

GRANTED and the complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Entered: uals is, Le 1

Wwe.

Senior United States District Judge

14