Marie Assa'ad-Faltas v. Gingliat, Bettis and Savitz

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999529524-2]; denying Motion for injunctive relief pending appeal (FRAP 8) [999499544-2] Originating case number: 3:14-cv-03431-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999571989].. [14-2263]

Appeal: 14-2263

Doc: 15

Filed: 04/27/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2263

MARIE ASSA’AD-FALTAS, MD MPH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GINGLIAT SAVITZ AND BETTIS LAW FIRM, THE, in its corporate
capacity; STEPHEN SAVITZ, Individually; TIFFANY LURKE,
officially as employee of Palmetto Health Richland Hospital
for injunctive relief and individually for damages; FRANK
VOSS, JR., individually for damages; PALMETTO HEALTH
RICHLAND HOSPITAL, PHRH for damages and for injunctive
relief; ALL AGENTS OF PHRH, who injured Plaintiff on 23
August 2012 and thereafter individually and for damages and
officially for injunctive relief,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (3:14-cv-03431-TLW)

Submitted:

April 23, 2015

Decided: April 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2263

Doc: 15

Filed: 04/27/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Marie

Assa’ad-Faltas

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss her
42

U.S.C.

§ 1983

(2012)

action

against

Defendants.

reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

We

have

Accordingly,

we deny Assa’ad-Faltas’s motions for injunctive relief pending
appeal and for appointment of counsel and we affirm the district
court’s

judgment.

Assa’ad-Faltas

v.

The

Gingliat,

Bettis

&

Savitz Law Firm, No. 3:14-cv-03431-TLW (D.S.C. Nov. 5, 2014).
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

2