Marie Assa'ad-Faltas v. Columbia South Carolina, City , 588 F. App'x 273 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1762
MARIE ASSA’AD-FALTAS, MD MPH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COLUMBIA SC, CITY OF; THE CITY'S POLICE DEPARTMENT, for
damages and injunctive and declaratory relief; SARA HEATHER
SAVITZ WEISS, individually for damages; TANDY CARTER,
individually for damages; DEBBIE C. JORDAN, individually for
damages; MICHAEL KING, individually for damages; CPD CAPTAIN
GREGORY A. SHARP, individually for damages; CPD SARGENT
JAMES AULD, individually for damages; CPD OFFICER BROWN,
individually for damages; CPD OFFICER GIRARD, individually
for damages; RICHLAND/COLUMBIA DISPATCHER BRUNER,
individually for damages; RETIRED CPD SARGENT JOSEPH SMITH,
individually for damages; DANA ELIZABETH DAVIS TURNER,
individually for damages; PAMELA ELAINE JACOBS HAWKINS,
individually for damages; ATTORNEY DAVID W. FARRELL,
individually for damages; ATTORNEY ROBERT G. COOPER,
individually for damages; DINAH GAIL STEELE; LARRY WAYNE
MASON; JOHN MITCHEL JONES; CHARLENE CROUCH; TERESA FELICIA
INGRAM-JACKSON, individually for damages; STEELE
ENTERPRISES, corporation owned by Steele and/or Mason for
damages; AAA INVESTIGATIONS, corporation owned by Steele
and/or Mason for damages; J. ANDREW DELANEY, individually
for damages; MCANGUS GOUDELOCK & COURIE, for damages; REUBEN
SANTIAGO, Interim CPD Chief solely officially for injunctive
and declaratory relief; TERESA WISLON, Manger of the City
solely officially for injunctive and declaratory relief;
ALAN WILSON, Attorney General of South Carolina solely
officially for injunctive and declaratory relief, and other
presently-unknown persons and entities who acted to injure
Plaintiff on 12 December 2009,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (3:13-cv-02715-TLW)
Submitted: December 10, 2014 Decided: December 19, 2014
Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marie Assa’ad-Faltas, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas seeks to appeal the
district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s
recommendation to dismiss her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint,
without prejudice, after a 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2012) review, and
denying her motion to amend. Assa’ad-Faltas has also filed
motions for an extension of time to file an opening brief, to
place her appeal in abeyance, and for injunctive relief pending
the appeal.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545–
46 (1949). The order Assa’ad-Faltas seeks to appeal is neither
a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral
order because it is possible for her to cure many of the
pleading deficiencies that were identified by the district
court. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,
10 F.3d 1064, 1066–67 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that a dismissal
without prejudice is not appealable unless it is clear that no
amendment to the complaint “could cure the defects in the
plaintiff’s case”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also
Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir. 2005)
(explaining that, under Domino Sugar, this court must “examine
3
the appealability of a dismissal without prejudice based on the
specific facts of the case in order to guard against piecemeal
litigation and repetitive appeals”).
Accordingly, we deny Assa’ad-Faltas’s motions for an
extension of time to file an opening brief, to place her appeal
in abeyance, and for injunctive relief pending the appeal, * and
we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
*
We recognize that Assa’ad-Faltas filed identical motions
in three other appeals she currently has pending in this Court
(Appeal Nos. 14-2167, 14-2258, and 14-2263). By this
disposition, we express no opinion as to the merits of the
motions filed in those appeals.
4