Marie Assa'ad-Faltas v. John Kittredge

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 29, 2023
• Docket: 22-2189
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2189 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/29/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-2189

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. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (3:22-cv-00923-TLW-SVH)

Submitted: June 22, 2023 Decided: June 29, 2023

Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-2189 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/29/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, MD, MPH, seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny Assa’ad-Faltas’ motions for a

temporary restraining order and for a stay of the district court proceedings. 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). Upon review, we conclude that the order Assa’ad-

Faltas seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral

order. See, e.g., Drudge v. McKernon, 482 F.2d 1375, 1376 (4th Cir. 1973) (“We have

been cited to no authority, and we are aware of none, that, as a general rule, the granting or

denial of a motion for a temporary restraining order is an appealable order.”). Accordingly,

we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny as moot Assa’ad-Faltas’ motion to

require Appellee to respond to the informal brief and mediate the case. 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