Filed: Aug. 01, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1563 DOREEN SHING, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WAL MART CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:16-cv-00322-CCB) Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 1, 2016 Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Doreen Shing, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1563 DOREEN SHING, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WAL MART CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:16-cv-00322-CCB) Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 1, 2016 Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Doreen Shing, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1563 DOREEN SHING, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WAL MART CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:16-cv-00322-CCB) Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 1, 2016 Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Doreen Shing, Appellant Pro Se. Rachelle Elizabeth Hill, Kevin Michael Kraham, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Doreen Shing appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Shing v. Wal Mart Corp., No. 1:16-cv-00322-CCB (D. Md. May 6, 2016). 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
