Case Name: Catherine Denise RANDOLPH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. ATTORNEY OF MARYLAND, Rod Rosenstein, et al; Unknown Defendants, Defendants-Appellees; Catherine Denise Randolph, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Loretta Lynch, U.S. Attorney General-Respondents et al defendants: Melvin Bright, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-31
Citations: 615 F. App'x 124
Docket Number: Nos. 15-1497, 15-1786
Parties: Catherine Denise RANDOLPH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. ATTORNEY OF MARYLAND, Rod Rosenstein, et al; Unknown Defendants, Defendants-Appellees. Catherine Denise Randolph, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Loretta Lynch, U.S. Attorney General-Respondents et al defendants: Melvin Bright, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 615
Pages: 124–125

Head Matter:
Catherine Denise RANDOLPH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. ATTORNEY OF MARYLAND, Rod Rosenstein, et al; Unknown Defendants, Defendants-Appellees. Catherine Denise Randolph, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Loretta Lynch, U.S. Attorney General-Respondents et al defendants: Melvin Bright, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 15-1497, 15-1786.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 27, 2015.
Decided: Aug. 31, 2015.
Catherine Denise Randolph, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 complaints for failing to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2012). We have reviewed the records and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for the reasons stated by the district court. Randolph v. U.S. Attorney of Md., No. 1:15-cv-01137-JFM (D. Md. filed Apr. 30, 2015; entered May 1, 2015); Randolph v. Lynch, No. 1:15-cv-02005-JFM, 2015 WL 4249395 (D.Md. July 10, 2015). 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.