
    Patricia D. TEAL, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Mozelle SINGLETON; Malcolm Elliott; Wendy Helms; John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendants—Appellees. Patricia Teal, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service Agency; Marty Gerr; Kelly Walsh; Ardine Harley; Wendy Helms; Regina Miller; Jim Von Canon; Sharon Byrd; Malcolm Elliott; Roger Parker, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 05-1315, 05-1316.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 12, 2005.
    Decided: May 17, 2005.
    Patricia D. Teal, Appellant pro se.
    Paul Bradford Taylor, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Patricia D. Teal, a former United States Postal Service (USPS) employee, appeals a district court order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust her administrative remedies and a district court order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to timely file suit in her employment discrimination and retaliation actions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. We find the district court correctly dismissed No. 05-1315 on the ground that Teal faded to file suit within ninety days of receipt of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) right-to-sue letter. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) (2000). We also find the district court correctly dismissed No. 05-1316 on the ground that Teal failed to timely exhaust her administrative remedies by failing to file an appeal to the EEOC of the USPS’s decision within thirty days. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.402(a). Accordingly, we affirm both orders for the reasons stated by the district court. See Teal v. Singleton, No. CA-03-603 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 1, 2005); Teal v. Potter, No. CA-03-604 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 31, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED  