Marie Assa'ad-Faltas v. State of South Carolina ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6995 Doc: 16 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UNPUBLISHED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: 22-6995 Doc: 16 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: 22-6995 Doc: 16 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-6995 Doc: 16 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