*644 OPINION

Sisir Chattopadhyay appeals from the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to the Employer and dismissing his employment discrimination action based upon national origin for failure to timely exhaust administrative remedies and denying his motion for reconsideration. Finding no error, we affirm.

This court reviews de novo a district court’s order granting summary judgment and views the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Providence Square Assocs., L.L.C. v. G.D.F., Inc., 211 F.3d 846, 850 (4th Cir. 2000). Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Summary judgment will be granted unless a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party on the evidence presented. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

A federal employee is required to timely exhaust his administrative remedies by initiating contact with an EEO counselor within forty-five days of the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory, or of the effective date of the alleged discriminatory personnel action. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1) (2001); Jakubiak v. Perry, 101 F.3d 23, 26-27 (4th Cir. 1996) (federal employee must notify EEO counselor within 45 days of discriminatory incident). The time limit may be extended if the complainant shows that he was not notified or aware of the time limits. 29 C.F.R. § 1613.214(a)(4) (2001).

Courts strictly adhere to time limits and rarely allow equitable tolling of limitations periods. See Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 95-96, 111 S.Ct. 453,

112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990). After a review of the record, we conclude that Chattopa-dhyay had constructive notice of the EEO filing requirements. See Nealon v. Stone, 958 F.2d 584, 589-90 (4th Cir. 1992); Zo-grafov v. V.A. Medical Ctr., 779 F.2d 967, 968-70 (4th Cir. 1985).

We therefore affirm the judgment order and order denying the motion for reconsideration. We deny Appellant’s motion for oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.