Rungrudee Suteerachanon v. McDonald's Restaurant of MD

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:13-cv-02889-RWT. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999610888]. [15-1130, 15-1131, 15-1132]

Appeal: 15-1130

Doc: 26

Filed: 06/29/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1130

RUNGRUDEE SUTEERACHANON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MCDONALD’S RESTAURANTS OF MARYLAND, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
MCDONALD’S CORPORATION,
Defendant.

No. 15-1131

RUNGRUDEE SUTEERACHANON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MCDONALD’S RESTAURANTS OF MARYLAND, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.

No. 15-1132

RUNGRUDEE SUTEERACHANON,

Appeal: 15-1130

Doc: 26

Filed: 06/29/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MCDONALD’S RESTAURANTS OF MARYLAND, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:13-cv-02889-RWT; 8:13-cv-03150-RWT; 8:13-cv-02890-RWT)

Submitted:

June 25, 2015

Decided:

June 29, 2015

Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rungrudee Suteerachanon, Appellant Pro Se. Nigel F. Telman, Amanda
C. Wiley, PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, Chicago, Illinois; Alex Chad
Weinstein, PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-1130

Doc: 26

Filed: 06/29/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Rungrudee Suteerachanon appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing her employment discrimination actions and denying her
motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
the record and find no reversible error.

We have reviewed

Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court.

Suteerachanon v.

McDonald’s Rest. of Md., Inc., Nos. 8:13-cv-02889-RWT; 8:13-cv03150-RWT; 8:13-cv-02890-RWT (D. Md. Nov. 24, 2014 & Jan. 9, 2015).
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

3