Marie Assa'ad-Faltas v. City of Columbia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:10-cv-03014-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998987533]. Mailed to: Marie Assaad Faltas. [12-1774]

Appeal: 12-1774

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/26/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1774

MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD-FALTAS, MD MPH for herself and for
all similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF COLUMBIA, South Carolina; MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL;
JEANNETTE MCBRIDE, Richland County Clerk of Court; DANA
DAVIS TURNER, Chief Administrator of the City Municipal
Court; ANGELA LADSEN, Ministerial Recorder for the City;
SANDI MYERS, Parking Officer for the City; ALL PARKING
OFFICERS, past present and future for the City; MARION
HANNA, Judge for Columbia’s Municipal Court; G. THOMAS
COOPER, JR.; JAMES R. BARBER, JR.; SOUTH CAROLINA CIRCUIT
JUDGES, and all other presently unknown persons and entities
necessary for adjudication of this case all solely in the
official capacities and solely for injunctive relief,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(3:10-cv-03014-TLW)

Submitted:

November 20, 2012

Before TRAXLER,
Judges.

Chief

Judge,

Decided: November 26, 2012

and

SHEDD

and

FLOYD,

Circuit

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Appeal: 12-1774

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/26/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, Appellant Pro Se.
Holly Palmer
Beeson, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-1774

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/26/2012

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Marie

Assa’ad-Faltas

appeals

the

district

court’s

order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss
her claims arising out of a parking ticket she received in 2010,
as well as its order denying her self-styled Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e)

motion.

We

dismiss

Assa’ad-Faltas’s

appeal

in

part

because she failed to timely appeal the district court’s order
dismissing her claims, and affirm the district court’s order
denying her motion for reconsideration.
Parties in a civil action in which the United States
is not a party have thirty days following entry of judgment in
which to file a notice of appeal.

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).

“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a
jurisdictional requirement.”

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205,

214 (2007); see United States v. Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th
Cir. 2009) (discussing Bowles and the appeal periods under Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)).
Assa’ad-Faltas’s

notice

of

appeal,

filed

more

than

thirty days after the district court entered its order granting
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, was untimely filed.

Moreover, we

find that Assa’ad-Faltas’s motion for reconsideration, which was
filed more than twenty-eight days after the district court’s
order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss, did not toll the
time

for

filing

a

notice

of

appeal
3

of

the

underlying

order

Appeal: 12-1774

Doc: 12

because

it

was

Filed: 11/26/2012

not

a

timely

Pg: 4 of 4

filed

Rule

59(e)

motion.

See

Panhorst v. United States, 241 F.3d 367, 369-73 (4th Cir. 2001).
Although the district court did not explicitly construe Assa’adFaltas’s motion for reconsideration as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
motion, we nonetheless find that Assa’ad-Faltas’s motion failed
to establish that she was entitled to Rule 60(b) relief. *

See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Based

on

the

foregoing,

we

dismiss

Assa’ad-Faltas’s

appeal of the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion
to dismiss and affirm the district court’s denial of Assa’adFaltas’s

motion

for

reconsideration.

We

dispense

with

oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

*

Because Assa’ad-Faltas’s Rule 60(b) motion was not the
functional equivalent of a notice of appeal, see Fed. R. App. P.
3, we decline to construe the motion as a notice of appeal.

4