Strauch v. Exelon Corp.

Fourth Circuit

Strauch v. Exelon Corp.

565 F. App'x 256

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 9, 2014

DocketNo. 13-2464

StatusPublished

This text of 565 F. App'x 256 (Strauch v. Exelon Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Strauch v. Exelon Corp., 565 F. App'x 256 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

John J. Strauch, Jr., and Jason Endlich appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Exelon Corporation and Constellation Energy Group’s Severance Plan. We have reviewed the record de novo and the district court’s memorandum opinion and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Strauch v. Exelon, No. 1:13-cv-01543-JKB, 2013 WL 6092520 (D.Md. Nov. 19, 2013). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for discovery. See Erdmann v. Preferred Research, Inc., 852 F.2d 788, 792 (4th Cir.1988) (stating standard of review). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

John J. Strauch, Jr., and Jason Endlich appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Exelon Corporation and Constellation Energy Group’s Severance Plan. We have reviewed the record de novo and the district court’s memorandum opinion and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Strauch v. Exelon, No. 1:13-cv-01543-JKB, 2013 WL 6092520 (D.Md. Nov. 19, 2013). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for discovery. See Erdmann v. Preferred Research, Inc., 852 F.2d 788, 792 (4th Cir.1988) (stating standard of review). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

565 F. App'x 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strauch-v-exelon-corp-ca4-2014.