Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Yan Dong v. BASF Corporation, 13-1985 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-1985 Visitors: 30
Filed: Jan. 10, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1985 YAN DONG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BASF CORPORATION; JONATHAN ANTONUCCI, individually and/or as a Servant Agent or Employee of BASF Corporation, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cv-00605-MOC-DCK) Submitted: December 23, 2013 Decided: January 10, 2014 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, C
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1985 YAN DONG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BASF CORPORATION; JONATHAN ANTONUCCI, individually and/or as a Servant Agent or Employee of BASF Corporation, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cv-00605-MOC-DCK) Submitted: December 23, 2013 Decided: January 10, 2014 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yan Dong, Appellant Pro Se. Kelly Suzanne Hughes, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Yan Dong, a former employee of Defendant BASF Corp., appeals the district court’s order and judgment granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in Dong’s employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons set forth in the district court’s memorandum decision and order. See Yan Dong v. BASF Corp., No. 3:11-cv-00605-MOC-DCK (W.D.N.C. July 8, 2013). We grant Defendants’ motion to seal the identified exhibits submitted by Dong in his informal special appendix. (See ECF Dkt. #14, #20). 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer