JOE v. WALGREENS CO., 413 Fed.Appx. 928 (8th Cir. 2011)

Rev. David L. JOE, Appellant, v. WALGREENS CO./ILL; Walgreens Co./ILL, District 311; Jason Frederick, in his official capacity; Mary Ann Hansen, in her official capacity; Kristine Rasby, in her official capacity; Frank Maxwell, in his official capacity, Appellees.

No. 10-2656.United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.Submitted: February 7, 2011.
Filed: February 18, 2011.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.

David L. Joe, Sioux Falls, SD, pro se.

Jon C. Sogn, Lynn Jackson, Sioux Falls, SD, for Appellees.

Before LOKEN, MUEPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

[UNPUBLISHED]
PER CURIAM.

The Reverend David Joe appeals the district court’s[1]
adverse grant of summary judgment in his action asserting both state-law and federal law employment-discrimination claims. On de novo review, we conclude that dismissal of Joe’s state-law claims was proper. See Jansen v. Lemmon Fed. Credit Union, 562 N.W.2d 122, 124 (S.D. 1997). We also agree with the district court that Joe’s federal claims are time-barred, and conclude that the facts of this case do not warrant equitable tolling. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l); 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a). Accordingly, we affirm. See
8th Cir. R. 47B.

[1] The Honorable Roberto A. Lange, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.