Court Opinion

ID: 9402046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-14 21:00:49.974878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:57.091899
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1394      Doc: 33            Filed: 06/13/2023   Pg: 1 of 2

                                               UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                 No. 22-1394

        HUAN ZHOU,

                     Plaintiff - Appellant,

        v.

        LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC,

                     Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cv-00370-RDA-IDD)

        Submitted: April 28, 2023                                          Decided: June 13, 2023

        Before KING, WYNN, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Monique Antonia Miles, Danielle G. Pimental, OLD TOWNE
        ASSOCIATES, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Raymond C. Baldwin, Margaret
        M. Manos, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1394         Doc: 33      Filed: 06/13/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Huan Zhou sued her former employer, Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, for interference

        and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The district court granted

        summary judgment for Lowe’s on both claims and denied reconsideration. We review the

        grant of summary judgment de novo, see Roberts v. Gestamp W. Va., LLC, 45 F.4th 726,

        732 (4th Cir. 2022), and the denial of reconsideration for abuse of discretion, see Wojcicki

        v. SCANA/SCE&G, 947 F.3d 240, 246 (4th Cir. 2020). Seeing no reversible error, we

        affirm. 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

                                                     2