Wanda Letang v. Robert Wilkie, Jr.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 19, 2024
• Docket: 23-2311
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2311 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-2311

WANDA LETANG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ROBERT L. WILKIE, JR.; DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AGENCY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00154-GMG-RWT)

Submitted: April 18, 2024 Decided: April 19, 2024

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wanda Letang, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2311 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Wanda Letang appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint alleging

discriminatory termination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

§§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (Tile VII), as untimely filed and for failure to state a claim. We have

reviewed the record and conclude that the district court correctly found that Letang’s

complaint was untimely and did not relate back, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c), to the previous

race discrimination action Letang filed within the right-to-sue period identified in the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission’s decision upholding her termination. See Bailey v.

N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 910 F.2d 406, 413 (7th Cir. 1990) (“Rule 15(c), by its terms, only

applies to amended pleadings in the same action as the original, timely pleading.”). The

district court also properly found that Letang’s allegations failed to state a plausible claim

that Appellees terminated her employment because of her race. See Holloway v. Maryland,

32 F.4th 293, 299 (4th Cir. 2022) (“To state a claim for unlawful termination, a Title VII

plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to raise a plausible inference that h[er] employer

discharged h[er] because of h[er] race.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED