Gonzalez v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 610 F.2d 241, 249 (5th Cir.1980). “The critical distinction in the continuing violation analysis is whether the plaintiff complains of the present consequence of a one time violation, which does not extend the limitations period or the continuation of that violation into the present which does.” Knight v. Columbus, Ga., 19 F.3d 579, 581 (11th Cir.1994). Here, Mr. Robertson does not allege any failure to promote which occurred within the limitations period. The only discriminatory act complained of which falls within the period is the August, 1995 termination. However, Mr. Robertson has produced no evidence linking the termination with the alleged August, 1994 failure to promote. See, Gallagher v. Croghan Colonial Bank, 89 F.3d 275 (6th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). There is no basis for application of the
holding that the plaintiff was precluded from asserting her failure to promote claim as a continuing violation holding plaintiffs untimely charge regarding transfer is not made timely through continuing violation by reason of her subsequent dismissal holding that plaintiffs dismissal of personal injury action and subsequent dismissal of declaratory judgment action concerning extent of tortfeasors insurance coverage did not trigger double dismissal rule holding that title vii does not include a continuing violation doctrine holding that because a  1326 violation constitutes a continuing offense venue may lie in any district in which the continuing conduct occurred