UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MARIE ASSA'AD-FALTAS, on behalf of herself and the class she represents, Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

SORAYA F. FARES, Plaintiff,

v.

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; CAROL NANCE; BOARD OF TRUSTEES, in its corporate capacity; JOHN PALMS, No. 96-2159 both individually and officially as USC president; JAMES MOESER, both individually and officially as Provost; EDWARD FLOYD, officially as chair of USC's Board of Trustees; MARK BUYCK, officially as chair of USC's Academic Affairs Committee; THOMAS STEPP, individually and as Secretary of USC's Board of Trustees; ALTON MCCOY, officially as USC's Internal Auditor; EDWARD VAUGHN, officially as South Carolina Auditor;MARGARET STILLWELL, officially as South Carolina Auditor; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL; DOUGLASS BRYAN, officially as DHEC Commissioner; FOSTER YOUNG, officially as Deputy Commissioner of DHEC; JAMES PADGET, both individually and officially; ROBERT BALL, both individually and officially; JUDY WEEKS, both individually and officially; RUSS MCKINNEY, both individually and officially; WALTER PARHAM, both individually and officially; CLIFFORD SCOTT, both individually and officially; J. O'NEAL HUMPHRIES, both individually and officially; CAROLINE STROBEL, both individually and officially; LAWRENCE DARK, both individually and officially; JAMES EBERSOLE; ERNEST P. MCCUTCHEON; JOAN M. ALTEKRUSE; LAURA BIRD NOTTINGHAM; ERIC BRENNER; JAMES SEARS; MARSHA WELSH, both individually and officially; PATRICK BARRISSI, both individually and officially, Defendants-Appellees,

and

2ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; MARY SECHRIEST, both individually and officially; JOHN DOE, unknown person and private organizations in their individual capacities, Defendants.

MARIE ASSA'AD-FALTAS, on behalf of herself and the class she represents, Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

SORAYA F. FARES, Plaintiff,

v.

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; CAROL NANCE; BOARD OF TRUSTEES, in its corporate capacity; JOHN PALMS, No. 97-1243 both individually and officially as USC president; JAMES MOESER, both individually and officially as Provost; EDWARD FLOYD, officially as chair of USC's Board of Trustees; MARK BUYCK, officially as chair of USC's Academic Affairs Committee; THOMAS STEPP, individually and as Secretary of USC's Board of Trustees; ALTON MCCOY, officially as USC's Internal Auditor; EDWARD VAUGHN, officially as South Carolina Auditor;

3MARGARET STILLWELL, officially as South Carolina Auditor; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL; DOUGLASS BRYAN, officially as DHEC Commissioner; FOSTER YOUNG, officially as Deputy Commissioner of DHEC; JAMES PADGET, both individually and officially; ROBERT BALL, both individually and officially; JUDY WEEKS, both individually and officially; RUSS MCKINNEY, both individually and officially; WALTER PARHAM, both individually and officially; CLIFFORD SCOTT, both individually and officially; J. O'NEAL HUMPHRIES, both individually and officially; CAROLINE STROBEL, both individually and officially; LAWRENCE DARK, both individually and officially; JAMES EBERSOLE; ERNEST P. MCCUTCHEON; JOAN M. ALTEKRUSE; LAURA BIRD NOTTINGHAM; ERIC BRENNER; JAMES SEARS; MARSHA WELSH, both individually and officially; PATRICK BARRISSI, both individually and officially, Defendants-Appellees,

and

4ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; MARY SECHRIEST, both individually and officially; JOHN DOE, unknown person and private organizations in their individual capacities, Defendants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Dennis W. Shedd, District Judges. (CA-94-1578-3-17BC)

Submitted: October 20, 1998

Decided: November 16, 1998

Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

Marie Assa'ad-Faltas, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Pedrick McWilliams, Victoria LaMonte Eslinger, Elizabethann Loadholt Felder, NEXSEN, PRUET, JACOBS & POLLARD, Columbia, South Carolina; PeterRobert Messitt, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

5OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Dr. Marie Therese Assa'ad-Faltas appeals the district court's dismissal of her civil action for abuse of the discovery process and the denial of her motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record, the district court's opinions and orders, and all pleadings filed in this court and find no reversible error. Assa'ad-Faltas's repeated failures to produce documents and comply with discovery orders, combined with her demeanor during her deposition, fully warranted the sanction of dismissal. See Hillig v. Commissioner , 916 F.2d 171, 174-75 (4th Cir. 1990); Mutual Fed. Savs. & Loan Ass'n v. Richards & Assoc., Inc. , 872 F.2d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 1989). Further, Assa'adFaltas's motions for reconsideration were properly denied. See United States v. Williams , 674 F.2d 310, 313 (4th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's orders.

We deny as moot Assa'ad-Faltas's motion for reconsideration of this court's denial of her motion to consolidate this case with the appeals in Nos. 96-2086 and 96-2177. See Assa'ad-Faltas v. State Newspaper , No. 96-2086 (4th Cir. July 16, 1998) (unpublished); Assa'ad-Faltas v. Attorney General , No. 96-2177 (4th Cir. Oct. 6, 1998) (unpublished). We decline Assa'ad-Faltas's request to consider this appeal in banc. SeeFed. R. App. P. 35; 4th Cir. Loc. R. 35(b). After the briefs were filed, Orin Briggs filed a notice of appearance for Assa'ad-Faltas for the purpose of participating in oral argument. However, we decline to hear oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

6