Court Opinion

ID: 9382176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-24 21:01:44.6119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:37.457840
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1921   Doc: 17        Filed: 03/23/2023   Pg: 1 of 4

                                        UNPUBLISHED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: 2 of 4

                                           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.

                                                   2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1921      Doc: 17         Filed: 03/23/2023    Pg: 3 of 4

        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.

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

        02228-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

                                                     4