Marie Assa'ad-Faltas v. State of South Carolina

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 23, 2023
• Docket: 22-6995
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6995 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/23/2023 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1921

MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD-FALTAS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, The; ALAN WILSON, Attorney General; WARDEN, Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center; COLUMBIA, THE CITY OF, South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 22-6993

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

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; COLUMBIA SOUTH CAROLINA, CITY OF, hereinafter “the City,”

Respondents - Appellees. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6995 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/23/2023 Pg: 2 of 4

No. 22-6994

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; COLUMBIA SOUTH CAROLINA, CITY OF, hereinafter “the City,”

No. 22-6995

MARIE THERESE ASS’AD-FALTAS,

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CITY OF COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA,

No. 22-6998

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6995 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/23/2023 Pg: 3 of 4

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cv-00809-TLW; 1:15-cv-00047- TLW; 1:15-cv-00044-TLW; 1:12-cv-02294-TLW; 1:12-cv-02228-TLW)

Submitted: March 21, 2023 Decided: March 23, 2023

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6995 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/23/2023 Pg: 4 of 4

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated cases, Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas appeals the district

court’s orders denying her motions to reopen the respective underlying district court

actions, as well as the court’s orders denying her subsequently filed Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

motions. We have reviewed the records in the underlying federal actions and discern no

error. See, e.g., Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 411 (4th Cir. 2010)

(explaining that granting a Rule 59(e) motion is “discretionary” and “need not be granted

unless the district court finds that there has been an intervening change of controlling law,

that new evidence has become available, or that there is a need to correct a clear error or

prevent manifest injustice”). We thus affirm the district court’s orders. See Assa’ad-Faltas

v. South Carolina, No. 3:11-cv-00809-TLW (D.S.C. Dec. 6, 2021 & July 28, 2022);

Assa’ad-Faltas v. South Carolina, No. 1:15-cv-00047-TLW (D.S.C. Dec. 6, 2021 & July

28, 2022); Assa’ad-Faltas v. South Carolina, No. 1:15-cv-00044-TLW (D.S.C. Dec. 6,

2021 & July 28, 2022); Assa’ad-Faltas v. South Carolina, No. 1:12-cv-02294-TLW

(D.S.C. Dec. 6, 2021 & July 28, 2022); Assa’ad-Faltas v. South Carolina, No. 1:12-cv-

02228-TLW (D.S.C. Dec. 6, 2021 & July 28, 2022).

We deny the pending motions to appoint counsel or argue the appeals pro se, and

deny as moot the motions to disqualify. 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