The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
25-2212•PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE NUMBER P60005535, a/k/a Ronald Satish Emrit, a/k/a… v. WES MOORE, Governor D - Maryland
25-2212Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 24, 2026
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-2212
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE NUMBER P60005535, a/k/a Ronald Satish Emrit,
a/k/a Presidential Committee/Political Action Committee/Separate Segregated Fund
(SSF) Number C00569897, d/b/a United Emrits of America,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WES MOORE, Governor D - Maryland; AISHA BRAVEBOY, Prince George’s
County Executive; JAMIE RASKIN, Congressman D - Maryland; ANGELA
ALSOBROOKS, Senator D - Maryland; CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Senator D -
Maryland; ANTHONY BROWN, Maryland Attorney General,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:25-cv-03014-PX)
Submitted: February 19, 2026 Decided: February 23, 2026
Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Presidential Candidate Number P60005535, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
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)(B). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error in the district court’s determination that Emrit’s complaint failed to present a coherent
claim for relief. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Presidential Candidate
No. P60005535 v. Moore, No. 8:25-cv-03014-PX (D. Md. Sep. 17, 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.