Reloj v. West

Full title: Ma Luz RELOJ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Togo WEST, Jr.; Department of…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 14, 2000

246 F.3d 675 (9th Cir. 2000)

Opinion

246 F.3d 675 (9th Cir. 2000) Ma Luz RELOJ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Togo WEST, Jr.; Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendants-Appellees. No. 00-15110. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit December 14, 2000

Submitted December 4, 2000 ²

2 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

D.C. No. CV-98-00406-DWH

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada David Warner Hagen, District Judge, Presiding.

Before TROTT, GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ¹

1 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Ma Luz Reloj appeals pro se from orders of the district court denying reconsideration of its summary judgment in her employment discrimination action. ³ We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

3 By order of the Ninth Circuit Appellate Commissioner dated February 10, 2000, Reloj's appeal is limited to the district court's orders entered on October 12, 1999 and December 15, 1999.

We review orders denying reconsideration for abuse of discretion. See Shalit v. Coppe, 182 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir.1999). Because the record showed that Reloj did not contact the Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") office until September 20, 1994, more than 45 days from the date on which Reloj should have been aware of the facts that gave rise to her allegations, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying reconsideration. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a); Leorna v United States Dep't of State, 105 F.3d 548, 551 (9th Cir.1997). The district court properly held that the materials Reloj received from her congresswoman on September 6, 1994 did not constitute a personnel action pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105. See 5 U.S.C. § 2302; 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16.

Because Reloj's October 25, 1999 motion for reconsideration did not address her claim that she contacted the EEO office prior to September 20, 1994, we do not reach this contention on appeal.

AFFIRMED.