Case Name: 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-29
Citations: 607 F. App'x 339
Docket Number: Nos. 15-1130, 15-1131, 15-1132
Parties: 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.
Judges: Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 607
Pages: 339–340

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.