Lin Gao v. YMCA of Greater St. Loui


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Bobby E. Shepherd, Kermit E. Bye and Jane Kelly (UNPUBLISHED); Denying [4264173-2] motion for appointment of counsel filed by Appellant Ms.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

Download PDF
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Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: May 15, 2015 Filed: May 21, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?