Suteerachanon v. McDonald's Restaurants of Maryland, Inc.

675 F. App'x 320
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 2, 2017
DocketNo. 16-1981
StatusPublished

This text of 675 F. App'x 320 (Suteerachanon v. McDonald's Restaurants of Maryland, Inc.) 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
Suteerachanon v. McDonald's Restaurants of Maryland, Inc., 675 F. App'x 320 (4th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rungrudee Suteerachanon appeals the magistrate judge’s order awarding costs and attorney’s fees in favor of McDonald’s Restaurants of Maryland, Inc. (McDonald’s), and the district court’s order granting McDonald’s motion to dismiss Su-teerachanon’s discrimination and retaliation claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2008 & Supp. 2016). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated in the appealed-from orders. See Suteerachanon v. McDonald’s Restaurants of Md., Inc., No. 8:15-cv-03196-RWT, 2016 WL 3855685 (D. Md. July 15, 2016 & July 26, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because thfe 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

Related

Definitions
42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
675 F. App'x 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/suteerachanon-v-mcdonalds-restaurants-of-maryland-inc-ca4-2017.