Marie Assa'ad-Faltas v. John Kittredge

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2189 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/29/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-2189
MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD-FALTAS, MD, MPH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN W. KITTREDGE, solely officially as Acting SC Chief Justice in SC Appellate
Case 2021-000815, and solely for declaratory and injunctive relief,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (3:22-cv-00923-TLW-SVH)
Submitted: June 22, 2023 Decided: June 29, 2023
Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2189 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/29/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, MD, MPH, seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny Assa’ad-Faltas’ motions for a
temporary restraining order and for a stay of the district court proceedings. This court may
exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Upon review, we conclude that the order Assa’ad-
Faltas seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral
order. See, e.g., Drudge v. McKernon, 482 F.2d 1375, 1376 (4th Cir. 1973) (“We have
been cited to no authority, and we are aware of none, that, as a general rule, the granting or
denial of a motion for a temporary restraining order is an appealable order.”). Accordingly,
we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny as moot Assa’ad-Faltas’ motion to
require Appellee to respond to the informal brief and mediate the case. 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
2