Filed: Nov. 04, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D August 29, 2000 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Charles R. Fulbruge III FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Clerk No. 99-60755 Summary Calendar MIN ZHONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus TALLAHATCHIE GENERAL HOSPITAL; ET AL., Defendants. TALLAHATCHIE GENERAL HOSPITAL; EXTENDED CARE FACILITY, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi 2:98-CV-44-JAD August 29, 2000 Before POLITZ, JOLLY, and EMILIO
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D August 29, 2000 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Charles R. Fulbruge III FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Clerk No. 99-60755 Summary Calendar MIN ZHONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus TALLAHATCHIE GENERAL HOSPITAL; ET AL., Defendants. TALLAHATCHIE GENERAL HOSPITAL; EXTENDED CARE FACILITY, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi 2:98-CV-44-JAD August 29, 2000 Before POLITZ, JOLLY, and EMILIO ..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
August 29, 2000
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Charles R. Fulbruge III
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Clerk
No. 99-60755
Summary Calendar
MIN ZHONG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TALLAHATCHIE GENERAL HOSPITAL; ET AL.,
Defendants.
TALLAHATCHIE GENERAL HOSPITAL;
EXTENDED CARE FACILITY,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
2:98-CV-44-JAD
August 29, 2000
Before POLITZ, JOLLY, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances
set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Min Zhong appeals an adverse summary judgment in his complaint claiming
national origin discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,1
disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act,2 and violation
of his rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act.3 Our review of the record and
briefs persuades beyond peradventure that there was no error committed by the trial
court. Accordingly, on the facts as found, authorities cited, and analysis made by
the trial court in its succinct but pointedly thorough Memorandum Opinion of
September 28, 1999, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
1
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).
2
42 U.S.C. § 12112.
3
29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.
2