Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-02167/USCOURTS-ca4-14-02167-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2167

MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD-FALTAS, MD MPH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CITY OF COLUMBIA; THE CITY’S POLICE DEPARTMENT; JEAN H. 

TOAL; DANA ELIZABETH DAVIS TURNER; PAMELA ELAINE JACOBS 

HAWKINS; DANIEL E. RICKENMANN; DAVID A. FERNANDEZ; ROBERT G. 

COOPER; CPD OFFICER TR HAMPE; ROSLYN W. FRIERSON, Director 

of South Carolinas Office of Court Administration; REUBEN 

SANTIAGO, Interim CPD Chief; TERESA WISLON, Manager of the 

City; ALAN M. WILSON, Attorney General of South Carolina, 

solely officially for injunctive and declaratory relief; and 

other presently-unknown persons and entities who acted to 

injure Plaintiff from 9 December 2010 to 4 February 2011, 

and to also injure her on 8 April 2013.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (3:14-cv-00298-TLW)

Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: April 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2167 Doc: 21 Filed: 04/27/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas appeals the district court’s 

order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss 

her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action against Defendants. We have 

limited our review to the issues raised in Assa’ad-Faltas’s 

informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b) and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we deny Assa’ad-Faltas’s motions for 

injunctive relief pending appeal and for appointment of counsel 

and affirm the district court’s judgment. Assa’ad-Faltas v. 

City of Columbia, No. 3:14-cv-00298-TLW (D.S.C. Sept. 26, 2014). 

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

Appeal: 14-2167 Doc: 21 Filed: 04/27/2015 Pg: 2 of 2