
    
      This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
    
    Maryanne OLYNYK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CRA OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, INC., and DaimlerChrysler Corp., Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 05-4064 to 05-4066.
    United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
    Dec. 18, 2006.
    Harland M. Britz, Britz Law Office, Clark Lake, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Andrew J. Dorman, Charles C. Spagnoli, Janik & Dorman, Cleveland, OH, Robert J. Gilmer, Jr., Heidi N. Eischen, Eastman & Smith, Toledo, OH, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: DAUGHTREY and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; and REEVES, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Danny C. Reeves, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.
    
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Maryanne Olynyk brought this action against the Defendants-Appellees, CRA Occupational Health, Inc. and Daimler-Chrysler Corp., for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act in connection with the Defendants’ termination of her employment at the DaimlerChrysler plant in Toledo, Ohio. The district court granted the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment because Olynyk failed to file a valid charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within the statutory period.

After a careful review of the record, the parties’ briefs and the applicable law, we are convinced that the district court correctly determined that Olynyk’s intake questionnaire could not be construed as a valid charge within the meaning of Title VII because Olynyk did not manifest her intent to activate the machinery of Title VII. Thus, we find that the district court properly concluded that the Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Olynyk’s claims and decline to reach the remaining issues raised by the parties on appeal and cross-appeal. Because the district court’s opinion accurately sets out the law governing this issue and clearly states the reasons for its conclusion, issuance of a more lengthy opinion in this case would not serve a useful purpose.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.  