Hoffmann v. Brown, (4th Cir. 1999)

Text

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1143 BRUCE L. HOFFMANN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

JESSE BROWN, Secretary of Department of

Veteran’s Affairs, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-

trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Max O. Cogburn, Magistrate

Judge. (CA-96-225-1-C)

Submitted: October 29, 1999 Decided: November 17, 1999

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles R. Brewer, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark

T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Clifford C. Marshall, As-

sistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993 & Supp. 1999). 2 Hoffmann also assigns error to the magistrate judge’s orders regarding certain discovery motions and motion for a protective

order. We find no abuse of discretion in the disposition of these

motions. 3 As one of the alternative bases for the grant of the summary judgment motion, the magistrate judge held that Hoffmann had failed

to “exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit.” (J.A. 3). Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) (1994), a person filing a

discrimination complaint with the EEOC need wait only 180 days be-

fore filing a civil action. Hoffmann filed his last EEO complaint

in November, 1995, and did not file suit until the following

September. In view of the other grounds for the decision below,

this error does not require reversal. 2 PER CURIAM:

Bruce L. Hoffmann appeals the magistrate judge’s order 1 grant- ing summary judgment to his employer in this action under the Re-

habilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 501 et seq. , related orders, 2 and the order denying his motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and

opinions and find no reversible error. 3 Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See

Hoffmann

v. Brown

, No. CA-96-225-1-C (W.D.N.C. May 23; Sept. 12; Oct. 27 & Nov. 14, 1997). We have previously granted the motion to submit

the case without oral argument because the facts and legal conten-

tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED

---