Filed: Oct. 12, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1664 MONA CHU, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-01375-CMH-MSN) Submitted: September 11, 2017 Decided: October 12, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mona Ch
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1664 MONA CHU, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-01375-CMH-MSN) Submitted: September 11, 2017 Decided: October 12, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mona Chu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1664 MONA CHU, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-01375-CMH-MSN) Submitted: September 11, 2017 Decided: October 12, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mona Chu, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mona Chu appeals the district court’s order dismissing her employment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Chu v. Patent & Trademark Office, No. 1:15-cv-01375-CMH-MSN (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 25, 2016 & entered Apr. 26, 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
