UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

DAVID E. HOSPODOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.                                                             No. 99-2017

BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-97-1350-1)

Submitted: January 25, 2000

Decided: February 23, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges,
and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

David W. McDonald, Kristian Nicole Allen, HICKS, MCDONALD,
ALLEN, NOECKER & AYCOCK, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Caro-
lina, for Appellant. M. Daniel McGinn, John R. Archambault,
BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD,
L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

David E. Hospodor appeals the district court's order and judgment
granting summary judgment to Burlington Industries, Inc., and dis-
missing his complaint alleging that he was discharged due to his age
and disability in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621-634 (West 1999 & Supp. 1999),
and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C.A.
§§ 12101-12213 (West 1995 & Supp. 1999). Hospodor contends that
the district court erred by finding that his complaint was barred
because he did not file a charge of discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") in a timely fashion.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We review a district court's decision to grant summary judgment
de novo. See Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d
1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is appropriate only
"if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admis-
sions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

Pursuant to the ADA, the ADEA, and Title VII, an employee can-
not seek redress in federal court for an employer's alleged discrimina-
tory conduct unless he filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC
within 180 days "after the alleged unlawful practice occurred." 29
U.S.C. § 626(d) (1994); see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1994); 42
U.S.C.A. § 12117(a) (West 1995); McCullough v. Branch Banking &
Trust Co., 35 F.3d 127, 131 (4th Cir. 1994) (claim is time-barred in
federal court if employee does not file a timely charge with the
EEOC). In a case involving alleged unlawful termination, the time for
filing EEOC charges accrues when the employee receives notice of
his termination, not when the termination occurs. See Chardon v.

                     2
Fernandez, 454 U.S. 6, 8 (1981); Delaware State College v. Ricks,
449 U.S. 250, 258 (1980).

We agree with the district court that the time for filing Hospodor's
complaint with the EEOC accrued on October 24, 1996, when he
received notice that he was to be terminated. That notice was final
and unequivocal. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the
notice was rescinded. Thus, Hospodor's August 19, 1997, charge of
discrimination filed with the EEOC was untimely and he cannot seek
redress for the alleged discriminatory conduct in federal court.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
Hospodor v. Burlington Indus., No. CA-97-1350-1 (M.D.N.C. June
23, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately set forth in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3
