Wanda Letang v. Robert Wilkie, Jr.

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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