Randolph v. Gansler

Fourth Circuit

Randolph v. Gansler

485 F. App'x 625

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 15, 2012·No. No. 12-1793·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Catherine Denise Randolph appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and denying her subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Randolph v. Gansler, No. 1:12-cv-01466-JFM (D. Md. May 24, 2012, June 11, 2012). We deny as moot Randolph’s motion to expedite. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Catherine Denise Randolph appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and denying her subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Randolph v. Gansler, No. 1:12-cv-01466-JFM (D. Md. May 24, 2012, June 11, 2012). We deny as moot Randolph’s motion to expedite. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Randolph v. Gansler, 485 F. App'x 625 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

485 F. App'x 625 (Randolph v. Gansler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related