Marie Assa'ad-Faltas v. Columbia South Carolina, City

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for injunctive relief pending appeal (FRAP 8) [999490991-2]; denying Motion for abeyance (Local Rule 12(d)) [999490980-2]; denying Motion to extend filing time [999490979-2] Originating case number: 3:13-cv-02715-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999497030]. Mailed to: Marie Assa'ad-Faltas. [14-1762]

Appeal: 14-1762

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/19/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1762

MARIE ASSA’AD-FALTAS, MD MPH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COLUMBIA SC, CITY OF; THE CITY'S POLICE DEPARTMENT, for
damages and injunctive and declaratory relief; SARA HEATHER
SAVITZ WEISS, individually for damages; TANDY CARTER,
individually for damages; DEBBIE C. JORDAN, individually for
damages; MICHAEL KING, individually for damages; CPD CAPTAIN
GREGORY A. SHARP, individually for damages; CPD SARGENT
JAMES AULD, individually for damages; CPD OFFICER BROWN,
individually for damages; CPD OFFICER GIRARD, individually
for
damages;
RICHLAND/COLUMBIA
DISPATCHER
BRUNER,
individually for damages; RETIRED CPD SARGENT JOSEPH SMITH,
individually for damages; DANA ELIZABETH DAVIS TURNER,
individually for damages; PAMELA ELAINE JACOBS HAWKINS,
individually for damages; ATTORNEY DAVID W. FARRELL,
individually for damages; ATTORNEY ROBERT G. COOPER,
individually for damages; DINAH GAIL STEELE; LARRY WAYNE
MASON; JOHN MITCHEL JONES; CHARLENE CROUCH; TERESA FELICIA
INGRAM-JACKSON,
individually
for
damages;
STEELE
ENTERPRISES, corporation owned by Steele and/or Mason for
damages; AAA INVESTIGATIONS, corporation owned by Steele
and/or Mason for damages; J. ANDREW DELANEY, individually
for damages; MCANGUS GOUDELOCK & COURIE, for damages; REUBEN
SANTIAGO, Interim CPD Chief solely officially for injunctive
and declaratory relief; TERESA WISLON, Manger of the City
solely officially for injunctive and declaratory relief;
ALAN WILSON, Attorney General of South Carolina solely
officially for injunctive and declaratory relief, and other
presently-unknown persons and entities who acted to injure
Plaintiff on 12 December 2009,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal: 14-1762

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/19/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (3:13-cv-02715-TLW)

Submitted:

December 10, 2014

Before DUNCAN
Circuit Judge.

and

DIAZ,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

December 19, 2014

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marie Assa’ad-Faltas, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-1762

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/19/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Marie
district

Therese

court’s

Assa’ad-Faltas

order

adopting

seeks

the

to

appeal

magistrate

the

judge’s

recommendation to dismiss her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint,
without prejudice, after a 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2012) review, and
denying

her

motion

to

amend.

Assa’ad-Faltas

has

also

filed

motions for an extension of time to file an opening brief, to
place her appeal in abeyance, and for injunctive relief pending
the appeal.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders.

28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545–
46 (1949).
a

final

order

order

because

pleading
court.

The order Assa’ad-Faltas seeks to appeal is neither
nor
it

an
is

deficiencies

appealable
possible
that

interlocutory

for

were

her

to

cure

identified

by

or

collateral

many
the

of

the

district

See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,

10 F.3d 1064, 1066–67 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that a dismissal
without prejudice is not appealable unless it is clear that no
amendment

to

the

complaint

“could

cure

the

defects

in

the

plaintiff’s case”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also
Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir. 2005)
(explaining that, under Domino Sugar, this court must “examine
3

Appeal: 14-1762

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/19/2014

Pg: 4 of 4

the appealability of a dismissal without prejudice based on the
specific facts of the case in order to guard against piecemeal
litigation and repetitive appeals”).
Accordingly, we deny Assa’ad-Faltas’s motions for an
extension of time to file an opening brief, to place her appeal
in abeyance, and for injunctive relief pending the appeal, * and
we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

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

*

We recognize that Assa’ad-Faltas filed identical motions
in three other appeals she currently has pending in this Court
(Appeal
Nos.
14-2167,
14-2258,
and
14-2263).
By
this
disposition, we express no opinion as to the merits of the
motions filed in those appeals.

4