Filed: Oct. 24, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1732 CHUAN-RUN CHEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM M. DALEY, Secretary of Commerce, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-96-1675-A) Submitted: October 10, 1997 Decided: October 24, 1997 Before HALL, ERVIN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chuan-Run Chen, A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1732 CHUAN-RUN CHEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM M. DALEY, Secretary of Commerce, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-96-1675-A) Submitted: October 10, 1997 Decided: October 24, 1997 Before HALL, ERVIN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chuan-Run Chen, Ap..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1732 CHUAN-RUN CHEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM M. DALEY, Secretary of Commerce, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-96-1675-A) Submitted: October 10, 1997 Decided: October 24, 1997 Before HALL, ERVIN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chuan-Run Chen, Appellant Pro Se. Rachel Celia Ballow, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals district court orders denying his motions for appointment of counsel and additional discovery and granting summary judgment to the defendant in his Title VII action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Chen v. Daley, No. CA-96-1675-A (E.D. Va. Feb. 21 & Apr. 11, 1997). 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 decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
