Filed: Dec. 13, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1725 RANI MEHAR, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:06-cv-01776-AW) Submitted: November 29, 2012 Decided: December 13, 2012 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rani Mehar, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1725 RANI MEHAR, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:06-cv-01776-AW) Submitted: November 29, 2012 Decided: December 13, 2012 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rani Mehar, Appellant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1725 RANI MEHAR, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:06-cv-01776-AW) Submitted: November 29, 2012 Decided: December 13, 2012 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rani Mehar, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Anthony Welter, WELTER LAW FIRM, PC, Herndon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rani Mehar appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant in Mehar’s employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Mehar v. 7-Eleven, No. 8:06-cv-01776-AW (D. Md. May 29, 2007). 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
