Court Opinion

ID: 995414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:37:06.050524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:32.590847
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MARIE ASSA'AD-FALTAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION
                                                                     No. 97-1006
SERVICE; THOMAS P. FISCHER,
Atlanta District Director INS;
OTHER INS EMPLOYEES, in both of
their capacities,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.
Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CA-96-180-3-19)

Submitted: May 29, 1998

Decided: July 1, 1998

Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Marie Assa'ad-Faltas, Appellant Pro Se. Frances Cornelia Trapp,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South
Carolina; Leah Loebl, Karen Fletcher Torstenson, Philemina McNeill
Jones, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washing-
ton, D.C., for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Dr. Marie Therese Assa'ad-Faltas appeals the district court's orders
in this action following her motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant
to Fed. R. App. P. 41(a). We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

To the extent Assa'ad-Faltas appeals the district court's September
27, 1996, order granting the motion to voluntarily dismiss, and the
October 11, 1996, order granting in part and denying in part the
Defendants' motion for reconsideration, we find that the notice of
appeal, which was filed on December 20, 1996, was untimely. See
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). Accordingly, we do not have jurisdiction to
review these orders, and we grant Defendants' motion to dismiss the
appeal as it pertains to these orders.

Assa'ad-Faltas's notice of appeal is timely as to the district court's
October 31, 1996, denial of her motion for reconsideration, and the
court's November 21, 1996, denial of her request to reopen. However,
Assa'ad-Faltas identified no factual or legal error upon which recon-
sideration or reopening could be granted. Because reconsideration is
not warranted when the movant is simply asking the court to "change
its mind," the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
these motions. See United States v. Williams, 674 F.2d 310, 313 (4th
Cir. 1982). Accordingly, although we deny the motion to dismiss the
appeal as to these orders, we affirm the district court's rulings.

Assa'ad-Faltas requests that she be granted mandamus relief in the
form of an order permitting her to withdraw her motion for voluntary

                    2
dismissal if this court concludes that her appeal is not from a final
order. However, we have not concluded that the orders appealed from
are not appealable orders. Further, mandamus relief is only available
when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief requested and there
are no other means by which to seek the requested relief. See In re
First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988); In
re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Because Assa'ad-Faltas
does not have a clear right to withdraw her motion for voluntary dis-
missal, and because she may refile her action in the district court, she
is not entitled to mandamus relief, and we deny her motion for such
relief.

Finally, Assa'ad-Faltas has filed a Motion for the Honorable Clerk
of this Court to Admonish Counsel not to Make Statements that
Undermine Public Confidence in the Integrity of the Judiciary.
Assa'ad-Faltas asserts that counsel presumed to speak for the court
when stating that the Defendants were confident that the appeal would
be summarily dismissed. This statement, a mere guess about the out-
come of the litigation, is in no way improper. Accordingly, we deny
this motion.

Because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court, we dispense with oral argument.

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART

                    3