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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?