Case ID: f-appx_588/html/0219-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Catherine Denise RANDOLPH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW TECHNOLOGY, Defendant-Appellee. Catherine Denise Randolph, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Baltimore City States Attorney, Defendant-Appellee.
    Nos. 14-2080, 14-2108.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 16, 2014.
    Decided: Dec. 18, 2014.
    Catherine Denise Randolph, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not- binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Catherine Denise Randolph appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her two complaints as frivolous and for failure 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 deny Randolph’s motion and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Randolph v. New Tech., No. 1:14-cv-03068-ELH (D.Md. Oct. 3, 2014); Randolph v. Balt. City States Att’y, No. 1:14-cv-03176-WDQ, 2014 WL 5293708 (D.Md. Oct. 14, 2014). 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.