Jeremy McMillian v. Mississippi Lime Co., No. 08-1176 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - employment discrimination. District court did not err in failing to hold a hearing on plaintiff's claim that his mental incapacity should have tolled the limitations period for filing as plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to establish the claim.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-1176 ___________ Jeremy D. McMillian, Appellant, v. Mississippi Lime Co., Appellee. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: February 18, 2009 Filed: February 26, 2009 ___________ Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Jeremy McMillian appeals the district court s1 dismissal of his employmentdiscrimination action against Mississippi Lime Company (MLC). He argues that the district court erred in failing to hold a hearing on whether his alleged mental incapacity should have equitably tolled the limitations period for filing. We conclude the district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing, because McMillian s allegations did not establish a claim for equitable tolling. Cf. Lyons v. Potter, 521 F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir. 2008) (when complainant alleges sufficient facts which, if 1 The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. taken as true, establish claim of equitable tolling, court must give complainant opportunity to submit evidence on issue); see also Coons v. Mineta, 410 F.3d 1036, 1040 (8th Cir. 2005) (equitable tolling is reserved for circumstances truly beyond control of plaintiff); Boos v. Runyon, 201 F.3d 178, 184-85 (2d Cir. 2000) (question whether person is sufficiently mentally disabled to justify tolling of limitations period is highly case-specific; conclusory and vague claim, without particularized description of how condition adversely affected capacity to function generally or in relationship to pursuit of rights, is manifestly insufficient to justify any further inquiry into tolling). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
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.
