UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1762

MARIE ASSA’AD-FALTAS, MD MPH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COLUMBIA SC, CITY OF; THE CITY'S POLICE DEPARTMENT, for 

damages and injunctive and declaratory relief; SARA HEATHER 

SAVITZ WEISS, individually for damages; TANDY CARTER, 

individually for damages; DEBBIE C. JORDAN, individually for 

damages; MICHAEL KING, individually for damages; CPD CAPTAIN 

GREGORY A. SHARP, individually for damages; CPD SARGENT 

JAMES AULD, individually for damages; CPD OFFICER BROWN, 

individually for damages; CPD OFFICER GIRARD, individually 

for damages; RICHLAND/COLUMBIA DISPATCHER BRUNER, 

individually for damages; RETIRED CPD SARGENT JOSEPH SMITH, 

individually for damages; DANA ELIZABETH DAVIS TURNER, 

individually for damages; PAMELA ELAINE JACOBS HAWKINS, 

individually for damages; ATTORNEY DAVID W. FARRELL, 

individually for damages; ATTORNEY ROBERT G. COOPER, 

individually for damages; DINAH GAIL STEELE; LARRY WAYNE 

MASON; JOHN MITCHEL JONES; CHARLENE CROUCH; TERESA FELICIA 

INGRAM-JACKSON, individually for damages; STEELE 

ENTERPRISES, corporation owned by Steele and/or Mason for 

damages; AAA INVESTIGATIONS, corporation owned by Steele 

and/or Mason for damages; J. ANDREW DELANEY, individually 

for damages; MCANGUS GOUDELOCK & COURIE, for damages; REUBEN 

SANTIAGO, Interim CPD Chief solely officially for injunctive 

and declaratory relief; TERESA WISLON, Manger of the City 

solely officially for injunctive and declaratory relief; 

ALAN 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 on 12 December 2009,

Defendants - Appellees.
2

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

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

Judge. (3:13-cv-02715-TLW)

Submitted: December 10, 2014 Decided: December 19, 2014

Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marie Assa’ad-Faltas, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation to dismiss her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint, 

without prejudice, after a 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2012) review, and 

denying her motion to amend. Assa’ad-Faltas has also filed 

motions for an extension of time to file an opening brief, to 

place her appeal in abeyance, and for injunctive relief pending 

the appeal.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and 

collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); 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 because it is possible for her to cure many of the 

pleading deficiencies that were identified by the district 

court. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 

10 F.3d 1064, 1066–67 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that a dismissal 

without prejudice is not appealable unless it is clear that no 

amendment to the complaint “could cure the defects in the 

plaintiff’s case”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also

Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir. 2005) 

(explaining that, under Domino Sugar, this court must “examine 
4

the appealability of a dismissal without prejudice based on the 

specific facts of the case in order to guard against piecemeal 

litigation and repetitive appeals”).

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

extension of time to file an opening brief, to place her appeal 

in abeyance, and for injunctive relief pending the appeal,* and 

we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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

 * We recognize that Assa’ad-Faltas filed identical motions 

in three other appeals she currently has pending in this Court 

(Appeal Nos. 14-2167, 14-2258, and 14-2263). By this 

disposition, we express no opinion as to the merits of the 

motions filed in those appeals.