The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
01-1458•Tae Il Bong v. Spartan Market, Incorporated
01-1458Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 6, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1458
TAE IL BONG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SPARTAN MARKET, INCORPORATED; MRS. KIM,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District
Judge. (CA-00-746-2)
Submitted: October 24, 2001 Decided: November 6, 2001
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tae Il Bong, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Greenway Byrum, SHAMES &
BYRUM, P.C., Chesapeake, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Tae Il Bong appeals the district court’s order granting judg-
ment for Defendants. We have reviewed the record, including the
district court’s statements from the bench, and find no reversible
error. The district court did not commit clear error in finding
Bong failed to establish Spartan Market failed to pay him the legal
minimum wage for overtime work. See Hendricks v. Central Reserve
Life Ins. Co., 39 F. 3d 507, 512-13 (4th Cir. 1994) (noting stan-
dard of review for factual findings). Accordingly, we affirm. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.