Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
25-1524•PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE NUMBER P60005535, a/k/a Ronald Satish Emrit v. United States Patent & Trademark Office, (uspto)
25-1524Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit29.07.2025
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1524
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE NUMBER P60005535, a/k/a Ronald Satish Emrit,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE/POLITICAL ACTION
COMMITTEE/SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUND (SSF) NUMBER C00569897,
d/b/a United Emrits of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE, (USPTO); UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; NASA GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT
CENTER, (GSFC); AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS, (AIP); KENNEDY
SPACE CENTER; NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, (NSF),
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (1:25-cv-00102-MOC-WCM)
Submitted: July 24, 2025 Decided: July 29, 2025
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Presidential Candidate Number P60005535, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Satish Emrit (who also identifies himself as Presidential Candidate Number
P60005535) appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error in the district court’s determination that the complaint failed to present a coherent
claim. Accordingly, we deny Emrit’s motion to transfer and affirm the district court’s
judgment. Presidential Candidate Number P60005535 v. USPTO, No. 1:25-cv-00102-
MOW-WCM (W.D.N.C. Apr. 30, 2025). 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 of 3 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.