Center v. People Solutions, Inc.

Full title: CONSTANCE CENTER, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. PEOPLE SOLUTIONS, INC.; et al.…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jul 29, 2002

41 F. App'x 990 (9th Cir. 2002)

Opinion

41 Fed.Appx. 990 (9th Cir. 2002) CONSTANCE CENTER, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. PEOPLE SOLUTIONS, INC.; et al., Defendants--Appellees. No. 01-15858. D.C. No. CV-00-00682-LKK(DAD). United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. July 29, 2002

Submitted July 22, 2002 ^*.

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument and denies Center's request for oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence K. Karlton, Chief Judge, Presiding.

Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Constance Center appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in her employment discrimination action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review summary judgment de novo. Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 852 (9th Cir.1998). Because the documents Center filed on June 16, 1999 did not constitute a complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), the district court properly determined that her action was time-barred. See Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 149, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984) (per curiam).

Center's remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.