Filed: May 21, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1258 CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, U.S. Attorney; ROD ROSENSTEIN, U.S. Attorney (MD), Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-00552-JFM) Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Di
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1258 CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, U.S. Attorney; ROD ROSENSTEIN, U.S. Attorney (MD), Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-00552-JFM) Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dis..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1258
CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, U.S. Attorney; ROD ROSENSTEIN, U.S.
Attorney (MD),
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:15-cv-00552-JFM)
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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-00552-JFM (D. Md.
Mar. 9, 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