Court Opinion

ID: 9368152
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-02 21:00:48.876926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:05.851400
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1742         Doc: 14        Filed: 02/01/2023   Pg: 1 of 2

                                              UNPUBLISHED

                                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 22-1742

        In re: DISTRICT CLERK’S OFFICE OPERATIONS,

        -------------------------------

        MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD-FALTAS,

                                Movant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (3:21-mc-00341-RBH)

        Submitted: January 24, 2023                                       Decided: February 1, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-1742      Doc: 14        Filed: 02/01/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas appeals the district court’s order accepting the

        magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny Assa’ad-Faltas’ motion for a temporary

        restraining order or for a preliminary injunction. We have reviewed the record and

        conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Assa’ad-Faltas’

        motion. Roe v. Dep’t of Def., 947 F.3d 207, 219 (4th Cir. 2020) (stating standard of

        review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. In re Dist. Clerk’s Off.

        Operations, No. 3:21-mc-00341-RBH (D.S.C. Oct. 29, 2021). We deny as moot Assa’ad-

        Faltas’ motion to expedite. 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

                                                    2