Sung Kun Kim v. Panetta

Fourth Circuit

Sung Kun Kim v. Panetta

516 F. App'x 268

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided April 1, 2013·No. No. 12-2311·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sung Kun Kim appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to his former employer in Kim’s action alleging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Kim v. Panetta, No. 1:11-cv-01370-LMB-TCB, 2012 WL 3600288 (E.D.Va. Aug. 21, [269]*2692012). 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sung Kun Kim appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to his former employer in Kim’s action alleging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Kim v. Panetta, No. 1:11-cv-01370-LMB-TCB, 2012 WL 3600288 (E.D.Va. Aug. 21, [269]*2692012). 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.

Sung Kun Kim v. Panetta, 516 F. App'x 268 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

516 F. App'x 268 (Sung Kun Kim v. Panetta) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related