UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________

No. 97-30785 Summary Calendar ___________________________

TONY B. ALEXANDER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

CHARLES CRENSHAW, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE LAFAYETTE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, LAFAYETTE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND CITY OF LAFAYETTE,

Defendants-Appellees.

___________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Louisiana (95-CV-1735) ___________________________________________________ April 1, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The district court granted summary judgment to the appellees

in this case, concluding that the summary judgment evidence

established that Appellant failed to file a timely charge of

discrimination with the EEOC.

The appellees submitted evidence that the EEOC had no record

that Alexander had filed a claim. This was sufficient to raise an

inference that the Appellant had not filed a timely charge of

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. discrimination with the EEOC. The only evidence the Appellant

submitted in response was a letter from the EEOC which stated that

the information Appellant had provided in a letter to the EEOC was

insufficient for purposes of filing a charge of discrimination.

The Appellant asserted that this EEOC letter established that he

had in fact filed a charge.

Even if the EEOC response letter supported an inference that

the Appellant had filed a charge of discrimination, there is no

basis for a reasonable inference that such a charge was timely.

Coleman v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist.,

(5th Cir.

1997) (holding that in review of a grant of summary judgment, all

reasonable inferences are to be drawn in favor of the nonmovant).

Appellant’s deadline for filing a discrimination charge with

the EEOC was in August of 1995. The EEOC’s letter to Alexander was

dated Oct. 31, 1995.2 We agree with the district court that it is

unreasonable to assume that the EEOC waited three months to notify

the Appellant that his letter was insufficient. Moreover, the

inference that Appellant timely filed his charge of discrimination

is particularly unreasonable because it was within the Appellant’s

exclusive ability to establish the date of his alleged filing, and

he offered no affidavit or other proper summary judgment evidence

to establish this date.

We conclude that the district court correctly concluded that

2 The EEOC’s letter stated, “[t]he information you provided is not sufficient for filing a charge of discrimination. Additional information is needed before we can pursue this matter.”

2 the summary judgment evidence established that Appellant failed to

file a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC. We therefore

affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.

3