Randolph v. Gansler

Fourth Circuit

Randolph v. Gansler

539 F. App'x 171

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided September 4, 2013·No. No. 13-6891·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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny as moot Randolph’s motions to expedite and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Randolph v. Gansler, No. 1:13-cv-01367-JFM (D.Md. May 13, 2013). 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.

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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny as moot Randolph’s motions to expedite and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Randolph v. Gansler, No. 1:13-cv-01367-JFM (D.Md. May 13, 2013). 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.

Randolph v. Gansler, 539 F. App'x 171 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

539 F. App'x 171 (Randolph v. Gansler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related