Filed: Oct. 17, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1653 In Re: CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH, Appellant. No. 16-1885 In Re: CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH, Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge; J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:15-mc-00369) Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 17, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1653 In Re: CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH, Appellant. No. 16-1885 In Re: CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH, Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge; J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:15-mc-00369) Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 17, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1653 In Re: CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH, Appellant. No. 16-1885 In Re: CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH, Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge; J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:15-mc-00369) Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 17, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Catherine Denise Randolph, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Catherine Denise Randolph appeals the district court’s orders returning her complaints because the complaints were not in compliance with the prefiling injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accpordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeals. 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
