Filed: Sep. 04, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6891 MISS CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DOUGLAS GANSLER, Maryland Attorney General; WILLIAM BROCKMAN, Deputy Solicitor General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-01367-JFM) Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6891 MISS CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DOUGLAS GANSLER, Maryland Attorney General; WILLIAM BROCKMAN, Deputy Solicitor General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-01367-JFM) Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6891 MISS CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DOUGLAS GANSLER, Maryland Attorney General; WILLIAM BROCKMAN, Deputy Solicitor General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-01367-JFM) Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Catherine Denise Randolph, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Catherine Denise Randolph appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny as moot Randolph’s motions to expedite and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Randolph v. Gansler, No. 1:13-cv-01367-JFM (D. Md. May 13, 2013). 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
