David McDowell v. Tankinetics, Inc.

Eighth Circuit

David McDowell v. Tankinetics, Inc.

505 F. App'x 613

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 20, 2013

Docket12-3441

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 505 F. App'x 613 (David McDowell v. Tankinetics, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

David McDowell v. Tankinetics, Inc., 505 F. App'x 613 (8th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

David McDowell appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his employment-discrimination action as untimely. We agree with the court that the complaint is untimely, because (1) it was filed well in excess of the applicable limitations period, see 29 U.S.C. § 626(e); Hallgren v. United States Dep’t of Energy, 331 F.3d 588, 589 (8th Cir.2003) (failure to file suit within 90 days of receiving notice of final agency action renders employment-discrimination action untimely); (2) the prior state court suit, which was removed to federal court and dismissed without prejudice, does not save the instant suit from a dismissal for untimeliness, see Gerhardson v. Gopher News. Co., 698 F.3d 1052, 1056 (8th Cir.2012); and (3) McDowell failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to equitable tolling, see Hallgren, 331 F.3d at 590.

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

David McDowell appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his employment-discrimination action as untimely. We agree with the court that the complaint is untimely, because (1) it was filed well in excess of the applicable limitations period, see 29 U.S.C. § 626(e); Hallgren v. United States Dep’t of Energy, 331 F.3d 588, 589 (8th Cir.2003) (failure to file suit within 90 days of receiving notice of final agency action renders employment-discrimination action untimely); (2) the prior state court suit, which was removed to federal court and dismissed without prejudice, does not save the instant suit from a dismissal for untimeliness, see Gerhardson v. Gopher News. Co., 698 F.3d 1052, 1056 (8th Cir.2012); and (3) McDowell failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to equitable tolling, see Hallgren, 331 F.3d at 590.

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

505 F. App'x 613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-mcdowell-v-tankinetics-inc-ca8-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack