Filed: Dec. 02, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1388 YIQUN GUO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE RYLAND GROUP, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee, and ARLENE MALECH; DOUGLAS TOWNSEND, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-1319-JFM) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 2, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1388 YIQUN GUO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE RYLAND GROUP, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee, and ARLENE MALECH; DOUGLAS TOWNSEND, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-1319-JFM) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 2, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1388 YIQUN GUO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE RYLAND GROUP, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee, and ARLENE MALECH; DOUGLAS TOWNSEND, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-1319-JFM) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 2, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yiqun Guo, Appellant Pro Se. Richard J. Hafets, Eric Paltell, Sonya Kazazian Hannan, PIPER & MARBURY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting Defen- dant's motion for summary judgment in this employment discrimina- tion action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Guo v. Ryland Group, Inc., No. CA- 95-1319-JFM (D. Md. Feb. 26, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci- sional process. AFFIRMED 3
