Case ID: f-appx_607/html/0339-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rungrudee SUTEERACHANON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. McDONALD’S RESTAURANTS OF MARYLAND, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and McDonald’s Corporation, Defendant. Rungrudee Suteerachanon, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. McDonald’s Restaurants of Maryland, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. Rungrudee Suteerachanon, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. McDonald’s Restaurants of Maryland, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
    Nos. 15-1130, 15-1131, 15-1132.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 25, 2015.
    Decided: June 29, 2015.
    
      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.
    Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 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-cv-03150-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.