Filed: Mar. 22, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1935 In Re: CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH, Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:15-mc-00369) Submitted: January 21, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Catherine Denise Randolph, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1935 In Re: CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH, Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:15-mc-00369) Submitted: January 21, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Catherine Denise Randolph, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1935
In Re: CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH,
Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:15-mc-00369)
Submitted: January 21, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 issuing a prefiling injunction. We have reviewed the
record and conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion
issuing the injunction. Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc.,
390
F.3d 812, 817 (4th Cir. 2004) (stating standard of review).
Accordingly, we grant Randolph’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and affirm the court’s order. 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