| Keyword | Case | Docket | Date: Filed / Added |     (11580 bytes)     (6823 bytes)

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an action against his former employer and a vice-president of the company alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss alleging that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The district court granted Defendants' motion finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Our review of the record and the briefs reveals that Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies. Plaintiff has failed to present any evidence that he complained to the EEOC regarding his termination or any other acts of retaliation that form the basis for this lawsuit as required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). Therefore, after a thorough review of the briefs and the record, we affirm for substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court's well-reasoned July 22, 2002, Order.

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge

^*. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

| Keyword | Case | Docket | Date: Filed / Added |     (11580 bytes)     (6823 bytes)