Case Name: LIN GAO, Plaintiff-Appellant v. YMCA OF GREATER ST. LOUIS, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-21
Citations: 604 F. App'x 530
Docket Number: No. 14-3661
Parties: LIN GAO, Plaintiff-Appellant v. YMCA OF GREATER ST. LOUIS, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEPHERD, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 604
Pages: 530–530

Head Matter:
LIN GAO, Plaintiff-Appellant v. YMCA OF GREATER ST. LOUIS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-3661.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: May 15, 2015.
Filed: May 21, 2015.
Lin Gao, Saint Louis, MO, pro se.
Daniel J. Doetzel, Hesse & Martone, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before SHEPHERD, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Lin Gao appeals the district court's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of her complaint, in which she asserted discrimination claims against her 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.
. The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.