Catherine Randolph v. New Technology, No. 14-2080 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2080 CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NEW TECHNOLOGY, Defendant - Appellee. No. 14-2108 CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BALTIMORE CITY STATES ATTORNEY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judges. (1:14-cv-03068-ELH; 1:14-cv03176-WDQ) Submitted: December 16, 2014 Decided: December 18, 2014 Before DUNCAN Circuit Judge. and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Catherine Denise Randolph, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Catherine Denise Randolph appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her two complaints as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). find no reversible error. We have reviewed the record and 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-03176WDQ (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 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.