Summary
dismissing case filed one day late and stating there “is no provision for excluding holidays that fall within the period of days to be counted”
Summary of this case from Price v. Am. AirlinesOpinion
No. 07-30465 Summary Calendar.
September 18, 2007.
Elizabeth Orphey, pro se.
Peter J. Butler, Jr., Breazeale, Sachse Wilson, LL E Tower, New Orleans, LA, Peter J. Butler, Law Office of Peter J. Butler, Gretna, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, No. 2:06-CV-11257.
Before REAVLEY, M. SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
Elizabeth Orphey appeals the dismissal of her employment discrimination suit as time-barred. She acknowledges that she had 90 days from September 22, 2006, in which to sue; she sued on December 22, 2006, which was the 91st day. Her only justification for avoiding the 90-day bar is that Thanksgiving Day, which occurred during the 90-day period, should not be counted.
There is no legal support for Orphey's position. The 90-day provision is strictly construed, and Orphey does not contend otherwise. See Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 379 (5th Cir. 2002) (suit filed three days late); Ringgold v. Nat'l Maint. Corp., 796 F.2d 769, 770 (5th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (two days late); Espinoza v. Mo. Pac. R.R., 754 F.2d 1247, 1251 (5th Cir. 1985) (same). There is no provision for excluding holidays that fall within the period of days to be counted.
The judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED.