Marie Assa'ad-Faltas v. John Kittredge

Fourth Circuit

Marie Assa'ad-Faltas v. John Kittredge

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 8, 2022

Docket22-1464

StatusUnpublished

This text of Marie Assa'ad-Faltas v. John Kittredge (Marie Assa'ad-Faltas v. John Kittredge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marie Assa'ad-Faltas v. John Kittredge, (4th Cir. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1464 Doc: 28 Filed: 12/08/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1464

MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD-FALTAS, MD, MPH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHN W. KITTREDGE, solely officially as Acting SC Chief Justice in SC Appellate Case 2021-000815, and solely for declaratory and injunctive relief,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Shiva Vafai Hodges, Magistrate Judge. (3:22-cv-00923-TLW-SVH)

Submitted: November 21, 2022 Decided: December 8, 2022

Before NIEMEYER, RUSHING, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1464 Doc: 28 Filed: 12/08/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s text order

denying her motion for recusal. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed.

R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The

order Assa’ad-Faltas seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory

or collateral order. See In re Virginia Elec. & Power Co., 539 F.2d 357, 364 (4th Cir.

1976); see also Wyatt By & Through Rawlins v. Rogers, 92 F.3d 1074, 1080 (11th Cir.

1996) (“An interlocutory appeal does not lie from the denial of a motion to disqualify a

district judge.”). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny all

pending motions. 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.

DISMISSED

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