THOMAS B. KULISH, On behalf of himself v. Rite Aid Corporation

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1044
THOMAS B. KULISH, On behalf of himself and on behalf of all
other similarly situated employees,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
RITE AID CORPORATION AND ECKERD CORPORATION, d/b/a Rite
Aid; RITE AID OF MARYLAND, INC. d/b/a Rite Aid,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
(1:11-cv-03178-ELH)
Submitted: June 7, 2013 Decided: August 16, 2013
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and DIAZ, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Martin A. Shellist, Daryl J. Sinkule, SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN
LLP, Houston, Texas; Judd G. Millman, LUCHANSKY LAW, Towson,
Maryland, for Appellant. Suzzanne W. Decker, Michael B. Howard,
MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Kulish, along with two other individuals who opted-
in to this collective action, appeals the district court’s order
granting defendants summary judgment on Kulish’s Second Amended
Class Action Complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and the Maryland Wage
and Hour Law, Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. § 3-401 et. seq.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons ably stated by the
district court. Kulish v. Rite Aid Corp., No. ELH-11-3178 (D.
Md. Dec. 13, 2012). 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 of 2 --