Marie Assa'ad-Faltas v. South Carolina

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999550736-2] in 15-6221, denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999550735-2] in 15-6222, denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999550733-2] in 15-6223, denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999550737-2] in 15-6225, denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999550732-2] in 15-6236; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999559259-2] in 15-6221, denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999559256-2] in 15-6222, denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999559265-2] in 15-6223, denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999559268-2] in 15-6225, denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999559273-2] in 15-6236 Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00045-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999683771].. [15-6221, 15-6222, 15-6223, 15-6225, 15-6236]

Appeal: 15-6221

Doc: 23

Filed: 10/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6221

MARIE ASSA’AD-FALTAS, MD, MPH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA, THE STATE OF; COLUMBIA SOUTH CAROLINA, THE
CITY OF, hereinafter “the City”,
Respondents - Appellees.

No. 15-6222

MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD-FALTAS, MD, MPH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA, THE STATE OF; COLUMBIA SOUTH CAROLINA, THE
CITY OF, hereinafter “the City”,
Respondents - Appellees.

No. 15-6223

MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD-FALTAS, MD, MPH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.

Appeal: 15-6221

Doc: 23

Filed: 10/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 5

SOUTH CAROLINA, THE STATE OF; COLUMBIA SOUTH CAROLINA, CITY
OF, hereinafter “the City”,
Respondents - Appellees.

No. 15-6225

MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD-FALTAS, MD MPH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA, THE STATE OF,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
COLUMBIA SOUTH CAROLINA, THE CITY OF,
Respondent.

No. 15-6236

MARIE ASSA’AD-FALTAS, MD, MPH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; THE CITY OF COLUMBIA, SOUTH
CAROLINA, hereinafter “the City”,
Respondents - Appellees.

2

Appeal: 15-6221

Doc: 23

Filed: 10/22/2015

Pg: 3 of 5

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Aiken.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge.
(1:15-cv-00045-TLW; 1:15-cv-00044-TLW; 1:15-cv-00047TLW; 1:14-cv-04811-TLW; 1:15-cv-00046-TLW)

Submitted:

October 20, 2015

Decided:

October 22, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

3

Appeal: 15-6221

Doc: 23

Filed: 10/22/2015

Pg: 4 of 5

PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas
seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

orders

accepting

the

recommendations of the magistrate judge to deny relief on her 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petitions.

Assa’ad-Faltas has filed an

application to proceed in forma pauperis, as well as a motion
for appointment of counsel, in each appeal.
The

orders

appealable

Assa’ad-Faltas

unless

a

certificate

of

to

appeal

justice

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

seeks

or

judge

are
issues

not
a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
at 484-85.

4

Slack, 529 U.S.

Appeal: 15-6221

Doc: 23

Filed: 10/22/2015

Pg: 5 of 5

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Assa’ad-Faltas has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny her applications to proceed in forma pauperis, deny her
motions

for

appointment

of

counsel,

appealability, and dismiss the appeals.

deny

a

certificate

of

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

5