Opinion
23-1025 23-1028 23-1029 23-1031
04-25-2023
RONALD SATISH EMRIT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAGERSTOWN HOUSING AUTHORITY; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, (HUD), Defendants-Appellees. RONALD SATISH EMRIT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALVERT COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, (HUD), Defendants-Appellees. RONALD SATISH EMRIT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, (HUD), Defendants-Appellees. RONALD SATISH EMRIT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. QUEEN ANNE'S HOUSING AUTHORITY; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, HUD, Defendants-Appellees.
Ronald Satish Emrit, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: April 20, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen Lipton Hollander, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cv-03145-ELH)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:22-cv-03159-PX, 8:22-cv-03162-PX)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (1:22-cv-03161-SAG)
Ronald Satish Emrit, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Ronald Satish Emrit appeals the district courts' orders dismissing his civil actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We have reviewed the records and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's orders. Emrit v. Hagerstown Hous. Auth., No. 1:22-cv-03145-ELH (D. Md. filed Dec. 8, 2022 & entered Dec. 9, 2022); Emrit v. Queen Anne's Hous. Auth., No. 1:22-cv-03161-SAG (D. Md. Dec. 12, 2022); Emrit v. Calvert Cnty. Hous. Auth., No. 8:22-cv-03159-PX (D. Md. Dec. 19, 2022); Emrit v. Prince George's Cnty. Hous. Auth., No. 8:22-cv-03162-PX (D. Md. Dec. 19, 2022). 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.