Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Harold Baer, Jr., Judge).
Woodruff v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.
RULINGS BY SUM M ARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUM M ARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERM ITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. W HEN CITING A SUM M ARY ORDER IN A DOCUM ENT FILED W ITH THIS COURT, A PARTY M UST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUM M ARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUM M ARY ORDER M UST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 22nd day of December, two thousand ten.
PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, REENA RAGGI, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment entered on December 23, 2009,is AFFIRMED.
Pro se plaintiff Eric Woodruff, who sued defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation under federal and state law for disability discrimination in employment, appeals from the dismissal of his Americans with Disabilities Act claims as time-barred. See 42 U.S.C. 12112 et seq. We review a district court's dismissal of a complaint de novo,*fn1 accepting the allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor, see, e.g., LaFaro v. N.Y. Cardiothoracic Grp., PLLC, 570 F.3d 471, 475-76 (2d Cir. 2009), consistent with the pleading standards articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In doing so, we assume the parties' familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.
Upon careful review of the record, we conclude that plaintiff's claims were properly dismissed for the reason stated by the district court, i.e., they were untimely filed. See 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a); see also National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 109-10 (2002). We are not persuaded by plaintiff's contention that his administrative complaint was timely filed within 300 days of the final disposition of a grievance proceeding challenging his termination because "the pendency of a grievance, or some other method of collateral review of an employment decision, does not toll the running of the limitations periods." Delaware State Coll. v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 261 (1980); see also Bates v. Long Island R.R., 997 F.2d 1028, 1037 (2d Cir. 1993) (noting that "grievance proceeding did not toll the limitations period" for disability discrimination claim).
We have considered Woodruff's other arguments on appeal and conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE, Clerk ...