Richard E. Day, Plaintiff-appellant, v. H. Lawrence Garrett, Iii, in His Official Capacity Assecretary of the Navy; Richard Thornburg, Attorney General;margaret A. Currin, United States Attorney; Jerald B.gartman, Commanding Office, Naval Aviation Depot, Cherrypoint, Nc; Lonnie Scott; Leslie O. Wetherington; Williamt. Taylor, Defendants-appellees, 966 F.2d 1441 (4th Cir. 1992)
Annotate this CaseArgued: David Peter Voerman, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellant. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
On Brief: Margaret Person Currin, United States Attorney, Linda K. Teal, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina; David E. Kirkpatrick, Naval Aviation Depot, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before RUSSELL, WIDENER, and HALL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
OPINION
Richard Day filed this federal employment discrimination action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 (1982) after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission dismissed his appeal as untimely. He now appeals the district court's order dismissing his complaint. After hearing oral argument and reviewing the record and the district court's opinion, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Consequently, insofar as the district court dismissed on that basis, we affirm on the reasoning stated in its order. Day v. Department of Navy, No. CA-91-4-CIV (E.D.N.C. July 5, 1991). Because we find the exhaustion issue dispositive, it is unnecessary to consider the issue concerning Day's failure to timely file his complaint in district court.
AFFIRMED
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
