UNPUBLISHED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,

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 4
2

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 4
3

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

Respondents - Appellees.

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1921 Doc: 17 Filed: 03/23/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
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-cv02228-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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1921 Doc: 17 Filed: 03/23/2023 Pg: 4 of 4