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

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:11-cv-02958-RMG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998924094]. Mailed to: MARIE THERESE ASSA'AD-FALTAS. [12-1233, 12-1243]

Download PDF
Appeal: 12-1233 Doc: 19 Filed: 08/24/2012 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1233 MARIE THERESE ASSA'AD-FALTAS, Party-in-Interest – Appellant, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; NIKKI HALEY, in capacity as the Governor of South Carolina, her official Defendants - Appellees. No. 12-1243 MARIE THERESE ASSA'AD-FALTAS, Party-in-Interest – Appellant, and LOW COUNTRY IMMIGRATION COALITION; MUJERES DE TRIUNFO; NUEVOS CAMINOS; SOUTH CAROLINA VICTIM ASSISTANCE NETWORK; SOUTH CAROLINA HISPANIC LEADERSHIP COUNCIL; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION; SOUTHERN REGIONAL JOINT BOARD OF WORKERS UNITED; JANE DOE, No. 1; Jane Doe, No. 2; JOHN DOE, No. 1; YAJAIRA BENET-SMITH; KELLER BARRON; JOHN MCKENZIE; SANDRA JONES Plaintiffs, Appeal: 12-1233 Doc: 19 Filed: 08/24/2012 Pg: 2 of 4 and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Party-in-Interest, v. JAMES ALTON CANNON, in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Charleston County; SCARLETT A. WILSON, in her official capacity as Solicitor of the Ninth Judicial Circuit; ALAN WILSON, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; NIKKI HALEY, in her official capacity as the Governor of South Carolina, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:11-cv-02958-RMG; 2:11-cv-02779-RMG) Submitted: August 22, 2012 Decided: August 24, 2012 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marie Therese Assa'ad-Faltas, Appellant Pro Se. Robert D. Cook, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, James Emory Smith, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 12-1233 Doc: 19 Filed: 08/24/2012 Pg: 3 of 4 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Marie Therese Assa’adFaltas seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying her motions to intervene in two district court actions, order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. and its We dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction because Assa’ad-Faltas did not timely appeal. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Although the district court may extend the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopen the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), “the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s orders were entered on the docket on November 7, 2011, November 10, 2011, and December 14, 2011, respectively. The notice of appeal was filed on February 17, 2012. Because Assa’ad-Faltas failed to file timely notices of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal periods, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss 3 Appeal: 12-1233 Doc: 19 the appeals. file a Filed: 08/24/2012 We also deny as moot Assa’ad-Faltas’s motions to surreply pending the Pg: 4 of 4 brief Supreme and to Court’s place the decision appeals in in Arizona abeyance v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?