Marie Assa'ad-Faltas v. South Carolina, the state of

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1277
MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD-FALTAS, MD, MPH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA, THE STATE OF,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, CITY OF,
Respondent.
No. 13-1278
MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD-FALTAS, MD, MPH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA, THE STATE OF,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, CITY OF,
Respondent.
No. 13-1595
MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD-FALTAS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; THE CITY OF COLUMBIA, SOUTH
CAROLINA, hereinafter “the city”,
Respondents – Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Aiken. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (1:13-cv-00034-TLW; 1-13-cv-00035-TLW; 1:13-cv-00032-
TLW)
Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: July 22, 2013
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Marie Therese Assa’ad-
Faltas seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the
recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying relief on
her petitions seeking federal habeas relief. Assa’ad-Faltas has
also filed motions for summary disposition and for oral argument
via video-conference in Appeal Nos. 13-1277 and 13-1278, and in
Appeal No. 13-1595, she has filed motions to be declared the
prevailing party and awarded costs, to exceed the informal brief
length limitations, and for an extension of time to file her
informal brief.
The orders Assa’ad-Faltas seeks to appeal are not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies
relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
3
ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Assa’ad-Faltas has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, although we grant Assa’ad-Faltas’s motions to
exceed the informal brief length limitations and for an
extension of time to file her informal brief in Appeal No. 13-
1595, we deny Assa’ad-Faltas’s remaining motions, deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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
4