Case Name: Marie ASSA'AD-FALTAS, MD, MPH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA, The State of; Columbia South Carolina, The City of, hereinafter "the City", Respondents-Appellees; Marie Therese Assa'ad-Faltas, MD, MPH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. South Carolina, The State of; Columbia South Carolina, The City of, hereinafter "the City", Respondents-Appellees; Marie Therese Assa'ad-Faltas, MD, MPH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. South Carolina, The State of; Columbia South Carolina, City of, hereinafter "the City", Respondents-Appellees; Marie Therese Assa'ad-Faltas, MD MPH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. South Carolina, The State of, Respondent-Appellee, and Columbia South Carolina, The City of, Respondent; Marie Assa'ad-Faltas, MD, MPH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The State Of South Carolina; The City of Columbia, South Carolina, hereinafter "the City", Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-22
Citations: 620 F. App'x 209
Docket Number: Nos. 15-6221, 15-6222, 15-6223, 15-6225, 15-6236
Parties: Marie ASSA’AD-FALTAS, MD, MPH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA, The State of; Columbia South Carolina, The City of, hereinafter “the City”, Respondents-Appellees. Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, MD, MPH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. South Carolina, The State of; Columbia South Carolina, The City of, hereinafter “the City”, Respondents-Appellees. Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, MD, MPH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. South Carolina, The State of; Columbia South Carolina, City of, hereinafter “the City”, Respondents-Appellees. Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, MD MPH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. South Carolina, The State of, Respondent-Appellee, and Columbia South Carolina, The City of, Respondent. Marie Assa’ad-Faltas, MD, MPH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The State Of South Carolina; The City of Columbia, South Carolina, hereinafter “the City”, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 620
Pages: 209–210

Head Matter:
Marie ASSA’AD-FALTAS, MD, MPH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA, The State of; Columbia South Carolina, The City of, hereinafter “the City”, Respondents-Appellees. Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, MD, MPH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. South Carolina, The State of; Columbia South Carolina, The City of, hereinafter “the City”, Respondents-Appellees. Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, MD, MPH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. South Carolina, The State of; Columbia South Carolina, City of, hereinafter “the City”, Respondents-Appellees. Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, MD MPH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. South Carolina, The State of, Respondent-Appellee, and Columbia South Carolina, The City of, Respondent. Marie Assa’ad-Faltas, MD, MPH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The State Of South Carolina; The City of Columbia, South Carolina, hereinafter “the City”, Respondents-Appellees.
Nos. 15-6221, 15-6222, 15-6223, 15-6225, 15-6236.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 20, 2015.
Decided: Oct. 22, 2015.
Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Marie Therese Assa'ad-Faltas seeks to appeal the district court's orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge to deny relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petitions. Assa'ad-Faltas has filed an application to proceed in forma pauper-is, as well as a motion for appointment of counsel, in each appeal.
The orders Assa'ad-Faltas seeks to appeal are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a. substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Assa'ad-Faltas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny her applications to proceed in forma pauperis, deny her motions for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeals. 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.