Long v. amazon.com Services, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 22, 2025
• Docket: 24-3257
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 22 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL E. LONG, No. 24-3257 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00209-RSL Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM* AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 15, 2025**

Before: FRIEDLAND, MILLER, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Michael E. Long appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

in his action alleging employment discrimination and harassment in violation of

Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.

Scholar v. Pac. Bell, 963 F.2d 264, 266 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The district court properly dismissed Long’s action because it was barred by

the applicable statute of limitations. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (requiring that

Title VII civil actions be brought within ninety days of notification that an

administrative charge was dismissed); Scholar, 963 F.2d at 267 (explaining that the

ninety-day period runs “from the ‘giving of such notice’ rather than from the date

claimant actually ‘receives’ notice in hand”); see also Payan v. Aramark Mgmt.

Serv. Ltd. P’ship, 495 F.3d 1119, 1122 (9th Cir. 2007) (“We measure the start of

the limitations period from the date on which a right-to-sue notice letter arrived at

the claimant’s address of record.”).

The motion (Docket Entry No. 3) for judicial review is denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-3257