In re: Catherine Randolph

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999896626-2] in 16-1653, denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999905070-2] in 16-1885 Originating case number: 1:15-mc-00369 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999948133]. Mailed to: Catherine Denise Randolph. [16-1653, 16-1885]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1653 Doc: 16 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1653 In Re: CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH, Appellant.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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-1653 Doc: 16 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: In appeals these the consolidated district appeals, court’s orders Catherine returning Denise her Randolph complaints because the complaints were not in compliance with the prefiling injunction. error. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?