Civil No. JFM-16-2338.


United States District Court, D. Maryland.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 12111
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 12111 Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Nature of Suit: 445 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment
Source: PACER

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Cynthia L. Williams, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Robert A. McDonald, Defendant, represented by Vickie LeDuc , US Attorney Office.

Monica Blanchard, Defendant, represented by Vickie LeDuc , US Attorney Office.

Charles Marshall, Defendant, represented by Vickie LeDuc , US Attorney Office.

Anthony Milons, Defendant, represented by Vickie LeDuc , US Attorney Office.


J. FREDERICK MOTZ, District Judge.

Plaintiff has brought this pro se action under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. Plaintiff has responded to the motion. The motion will be granted.

Plaintiff concedes that she did not file this action within 90 days of receipt of the Final Agency Decision terminating her employment. Plaintiff picked up the FAD on March 24, 2016, and this action was not filed until, at the earliest, June 23, 2016, 91 days later.1 Moreover, the Final Agency Decision was issued on March 3, 2016, and the U.S. Postal Service left a notice of delivery of the Final Agency Decision on March 7, 2016.

Courts strictly enforce the 90 day filing requirement, even if the plaintiff is pro se. Shelton v. Atlantic Bingo Supply Co., Civil Action No. DKC-11-0952, 2011 WL 4985277, at *2 (D.Md. 2011); Harvey v. New Bern Police Dep't, 813 F.2d 652, 654 (4th Cir. 1987). The equitable tolling doctrine does not apply. See Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96 (1990). Moreover, plaintiff, has not established that she acted with "due diligence" but only concentrates upon the final hours of her late filing.2

A separate order granting defendants' motion is being entered herewith.


1. It was not entirely clear when plaintiff filed her action. The June 23, 2016 date is the date stamped by the Clerk's Office. However, plaintiff appears to allege that she presented her complaint to the Clerk's Office on June 24 or June 25, 2016.
2. Defendants also assert that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted even assuming that her action was timely filed. I need not reach defendants' contention in that regard.


1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases