Filed: Apr. 09, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2464 JOHN J. STRAUCH, JR.; JASON ENDLICH, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. EXELON CORPORATION; CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP'S SEVERANCE PLAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:13-cv-01543-JKB) Submitted: April 1, 2014 Decided: April 9, 2014 Before SHEDD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2464 JOHN J. STRAUCH, JR.; JASON ENDLICH, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. EXELON CORPORATION; CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP'S SEVERANCE PLAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:13-cv-01543-JKB) Submitted: April 1, 2014 Decided: April 9, 2014 Before SHEDD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. A..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2464
JOHN J. STRAUCH, JR.; JASON ENDLICH,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
EXELON CORPORATION; CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP'S SEVERANCE
PLAN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-01543-JKB)
Submitted: April 1, 2014 Decided: April 9, 2014
Before SHEDD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher G. Mackaronis, BRICKFIELD, BURCHETTE, RITTS & STONE,
PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Azeez Hayne, MORGAN,
LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John J. Strauch, Jr., and Jason Endlich appeal the
district court’s order granting summary judgment to Exelon
Corporation and Constellation Energy Group’s Severance Plan. We
have reviewed the record de novo and the district court’s
memorandum opinion and affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See Strauch v. Exelon, No. 1:13-cv-01543-JKB
(D. Md. Nov. 19, 2013). We also conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for
discovery. See Erdmann v. Preferred Research, Inc.,
852 F.2d
788, 792 (4th Cir. 1988) (stating standard of review). 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