Stephane Wantou Siantou v. CVS RX Services Inc., No. 19-2262 (4th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2262 STEPHANE J. WANTOU SIANTOU, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CVS RX SERVICES INC., Defendant - Appellee. No. 19-2313 STEPHANE J. WANTOU SIANTOU, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CVS RX SERVICES INC., Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:17-cv-00543-PWG) Submitted: July 30, 2020 Decided: September 24, 2020 Before DIAZ, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephane J. Wantou Siantou, Appellant Pro Se. Maurice Baskin, Washington, D.C., Richard Russell Harris, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, John B. Moretta, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, Providence, Rhode Island, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Stephane J. Wantou Siantou (“Wantou”) and CVS Rx Services, Inc. (“CVS”) cross appeal from the district court’s final judgment entered after a jury found in favor of CVS on Wantou’s retaliation claim but declined to award punitive damages. Wantou also appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to CVS on his retaliatory termination claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wantou v. CVS Rx Servs. Inc., No. 8:17-cv-00543-PWG (D. Md. filed Dec. 7, 2018 & entered Dec. 10, 2018; July 26, 2019; & Nov. 5, 2019). We grant Wantou’s motions for leave to file briefs in excess of the page limitations and to amend his response to CVS’s motion to strike. We deny Wantou’s motion to strike CVS’s brief. We grant CVS’s motion to strike solely as to Wantou’s amended informal reply brief. 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 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.