Filed: Mar. 19, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2397 CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES; NEW TECHNOLOGY HOME-BROADCASTING BUSINESS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-03609-JFM) Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 19, 2015 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2397 CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES; NEW TECHNOLOGY HOME-BROADCASTING BUSINESS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-03609-JFM) Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 19, 2015 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed b..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2397
CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES; NEW TECHNOLOGY HOME-BROADCASTING BUSINESS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:14-cv-03609-JFM)
Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 19, 2015
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 dismissing her complaint as frivolous and for failing to
state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district
court. Randolph v. United States, No. 1:14-cv-03609-JFM (D. Md.
Dec. 12, 2014). 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.
DISMISSED
2