UN PUBLISHED
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 , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

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

- Appellees. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1921 Doc: 17 Filed: 03/23/2023 Pg: 1 of 42 No. 22
- 6994

MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD

- FALTAS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

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

- Appellees.

No. 22
- 6995

MARIE THERESE ASS’AD

- FALTAS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CITY OF COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA , Respondents

- Appellees.

No. 22
- 6998

MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD

- FALTAS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1921 Doc: 17 Filed: 03/23/2023 Pg: 2 of 43 STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CITY OF COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA , Respondents

- Appellees.

Appeal s 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 un published per curiam opinion

.
Marie Therese Assa’ad

- Faltas, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1921 Doc: 17 Filed: 03/23/2023 Pg: 3 of 44 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 availab le, 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. S outh C arolina , No. 3:11

- cv - 00809

- TLW (D.S.C. Dec. 6, 202 1 & July 28, 2022); Assa’ad

- Faltas v. S outh C arolina , No. 1:15

- cv - 00047

- TLW (D.S.C. Dec. 6, 2021 & July 28, 2022 ); Assa’ad

- Faltas v. S outh C arolina , No. 1:15

- cv - 00044

- TLW (D.S.C. Dec. 6,
2021 & July 28, 2022 ); Assa’ad

- Faltas v. S outh C arolina , No. 1:12

- cv - 02294

- TLW (D.S.C. Dec. 6, 2021 & July 28, 202 2 ); Assa’ad

- Faltas v. S outh C arolina , 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 appeal s 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 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1921 Doc: 17 Filed: 03/23/2023 Pg: 4 of 4