Lin Gao v. YMCA of Greater St. Loui

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Bobby E. Shepherd, Kermit E. Bye and Jane Kelly (UNPUBLISHED); Denying [4264173-2] motion for appointment of counsel filed by Appellant Ms. Lin Gao. [4277325] [14-3661]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 14-3661
___________________________
Lin Gao
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
YMCA of Greater St. Louis
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: May 15, 2015
Filed: May 21, 2015
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Lin Gao appeals the district court’s1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
dismissal of her complaint, in which she asserted discrimination claims against her
1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 14-3661

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/21/2015 Entry ID: 4277325

former employer. Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that the dismissal was
proper. See Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 848-49 (8th Cir.
2014) (district court’s grant of motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo; to survive
motion to dismiss, pro se complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to state claim to relief that is plausible on its face); see also EEOC v. CRST
Van Expedited, Inc., 774 F.3d 1169, 1181 (8th Cir. 2014) (plaintiff asserting Title VII
claim based on alleged harassment must show, among other elements, that there was
causal nexus between harassment and her membership in protected group).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Gao’s renewed
motion for appointed counsel.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-3661

Page: 2

Date Filed: 05/21/2015 Entry ID: 4277325