Catherine Randolph v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-01311-GLR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999680421]. Mailed to: Catherine Denise Randolph. [15-1606]

Appeal: 15-1606

Doc: 6

Filed: 10/19/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1606

CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General; ROD J.
ROSENSTEIN, Maryland U.S. Attorney, Department of Justice,
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(1:15-cv-01311-GLR)

Submitted:

October 15, 2015

Decided:

October 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Catherine Denise Randolph, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1606

Doc: 6

Filed: 10/19/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Catherine

Denise

Randolph

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order granting her leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
denying her motion to amend her complaint, and ordering her to
show cause why she should not be enjoined from instituting new
filings.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and
collateral

orders,

28

U.S.C.

§ 1292

(2012);

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 54546 (1949).

The order Randolph seeks to appeal is neither a

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2