Tommie Dawson v. Wells Fargo Corporation

Eighth Circuit

Tommie Dawson v. Wells Fargo Corporation

500 F. App'x 544

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 13, 2013

Docket12-3400

StatusUnpublished

This text of 500 F. App'x 544 (Tommie Dawson v. Wells Fargo Corporation) 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

Tommie Dawson v. Wells Fargo Corporation, 500 F. App'x 544 (8th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Tommie Dawson appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his civil complaint. After careful review, we conclude that the dismissal was proper. Dawson’s Title VII claim was untimely, and there was no basis for tolling the time limits. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e—5(f)(1) (civil action may be brought within 90 days of right-to-sue notice). Dawson also failed to state a fraud claim, because he did not allege that he acted in reliance on any false representation. See Northstar Indus., Inc. v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 576 F.3d 827, 832 (8th Cir.2009) (to establish fraud under Minnesota law, plaintiff must show, inter alia, that false representation by party caused other party to act in reliance thereon). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

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

PER CURIAM.

Tommie Dawson appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his civil complaint. After careful review, we conclude that the dismissal was proper. Dawson’s Title VII claim was untimely, and there was no basis for tolling the time limits. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e—5(f)(1) (civil action may be brought within 90 days of right-to-sue notice). Dawson also failed to state a fraud claim, because he did not allege that he acted in reliance on any false representation. See Northstar Indus., Inc. v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 576 F.3d 827, 832 (8th Cir.2009) (to establish fraud under Minnesota law, plaintiff must show, inter alia, that false representation by party caused other party to act in reliance thereon). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

500 F. App'x 544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tommie-dawson-v-wells-fargo-corporation-ca8-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack