Filed: Oct. 11, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1766 MCDONALD’S CORPORATION, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAT DO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-00-1592-A) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 11, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dat Do, Appellant Pro Se. David Harold
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1766 MCDONALD’S CORPORATION, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAT DO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-00-1592-A) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 11, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dat Do, Appellant Pro Se. David Harold ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1766 MCDONALD’S CORPORATION, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAT DO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-00-1592-A) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 11, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dat Do, Appellant Pro Se. David Harold Dickieson, BUCHANAN INGERSOLL, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Dat Do appeals from the district court’s order granting McDonald’s motion for summary judgment. We have reviewed the rec- ord and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. McDonald’s Corp. v. Do, No. CA-00-1592-A (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 30, 2001; entered May 2, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
