procedures under § 2000e-5 for ADA claims). The evidence Bonnett offered in resisting summary judgment did not create a triable issue on the timeliness of his charge, see Moody v. St. Charles County, 23 F.3d 1410, 1412 (8th Cir.1994) (requiring party seeking to defeat summary judgment motion to substantiate allegations with suffi- dent probative evidence, not just with speculation or conjecture), or on the timeliness of his complaint, see Kerr v. Charles F. Vatterott & Co., 184 F.3d 938, 947 (8th Cir.1999) (explaining that there is general rebuttable presumption that properly mailed document is received); and we find no basis for the application of equitable tolling, see Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 151, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
holding that lack of justiciable interest resulted in lack of standing to pursue claim and that lack of standing deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to act holding that a party who fails to provide sufficient evidence at trial cannot object to the resulting determination on the basis of inadequate evidence holding that plaintiff who fails to act diligently cannot invoke equitable principles to excuse that lack of diligence holding that plaintiff who fails to demonstrate employers awareness of any particular threat posed by circumstance at issue cannot prove negligence holding that a complaint that fails to meet the pleading requirements does not invoke the statutory waiver of sovereign immunity