Filed: May 21, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1174 CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, U.S. Attorney General, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00314-JKB) Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1174 CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, U.S. Attorney General, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00314-JKB) Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1174
CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, U.S. Attorney General,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:15-cv-00314-JKB)
Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Holder, No. 1:15-cv-00314-JKB (D. Md.
Feb. 12, 2015). 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