Anderson

Anderson v. Defense Logistics Agency

Good Law
867 F.2d 612·1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 1320
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 30, 198936-3_7California351 words

Opinion

Opinion

867 F.2d 612 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Ezell ANDERSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY, Defendant-Appellee. No. 87-2649. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted * Aug. 23, 1988. Decided Jan. 30, 1989. Before WALLACE, SNEED and POOLE, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Anderson appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his Title VII employment discrimination complaint against the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). We affirm. 3 The district court properly dismissed Anderson's Title VII claim. Anderson failed to name or notify the proper defendant, the director of the DLA, within the period of time allowed by statute. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-16(c). The district court correctly determined that Anderson could not amend his complaint to name the director of the DLA after the statutory period had expired. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) permits an amendment changing parties to relate back…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.