Opinion

Marie Assa'ad-Faltas v. Henry McMaster

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Jul 13, 2021
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6805

JEANNE VOLTZ-LOOMIS; GARY ZACHARIAH THOMAS; DENISE EDGAR;

BRANDON MOORE; ALLEN SLAUGHTER; GAY OPEL STANLEY; BRISON

AKEEM ALLISON; PROTECTION & ADVOCACY FOR PEOPLE WITH

DISABILITIES INC; JOHN DOES 1-10, on their own and on behalf of a class similarly

situated persons; JANE ROSS, 1 through 10,

Petitioners,

and

MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD FALTAS,

Movant - Appellant,

v.

HENRY MCMASTER, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of South

Carolina; BRYAN STIRLING, in his official capacity as Director of the South

Carolina Department of Corrections; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF

PARDONS AND PAROLES; CHRISTOPHER F. GIBBS, in his official capacity as

member of the South Carolina Board of Pardons and Paroles; MOLLIE DUPRIEST

TAYLOR, in her official capacity as a member of the South Carolina Board of

Pardons and Paroles; DAN BATSON, in his official capacity as a member of the

South Carolina Board of Pardons and Paroles; HENRY S. ELDRIDGE, in his official

capacity as a member of the South Carolina Board of Pardons and Paroles; LONNIE

RANDOLPH, in his official capacity as a member of the South Carolina Board of

Pardons and Paroles; KIM FREDERICK, in her official capacity as a member of the

South Carolina Board of Pardons and Paroles,

Respondents.

No. 20-6939

TWANDA MARSHINDA BROWN; SASHA MONIQUE DARBY; CAYESHIA

CASHEL JOHNSON; AMY MARIE PALACIOS; XAVIER LARRY GOODWIN, on

behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; RAYMOND WRIGHT, JR., on

behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; NORA ANN CORDER,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD-FALTAS,

Movant - Appellant,

v.

LEXINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA; GARY REINHART, in his

individual capacity; REBECCA ADAMS, in her official and individual capacities as

the Chief Judge for Administrative Purposes of the Summary Courts in Lexington

County and in her official capacity as the Judge of the Irmo Magistrate Court;

ROBERT MADSEN, in his official capacity as the Circuit Public Defender for the

Eleventh Judicial Circuit of South Carolina; BRYAN KOON, in his official capacity

as the Lexington County Sheriff; ALBERT JOHN DOOLEY, III, in his official

capacity as the Associate Chief Judge for Administrative Purposes of the Summary

Courts in Lexington County,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at

Orangeburg and Columbia. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge; Margaret B. Seymour,

Senior District Judge. (5:20-cv-01533-DCC-KDW; 3:17-cv-01426-MBS)

Submitted: June 17, 2021 Decided: July 13, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, New York, New York; Susan King Dunn,

ACLU OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Charleston, South Carolina; Toby James Marshall, Eric

Riley Nusser, TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, Seattle, Washington;

Kenneth Paul Woodington, DAVIDSON, WREN & PLYLER, PA, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas seeks to appeal the

district court’s orders denying her motions for intervention and, in Appeal No. 20-6805,

the district court’s order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. See

Assa’ad-Faltas v. McMaster, No. 5:20-cv-01533-DCC-KDW (D.S.C. May 6, 2020;

May 26, 2020); Assa’ad-Faltas v. Lexington Cnty., S.C., No. 3:17-cv-01426-MBS (D.S.C.

May 20, 2020). We deny Assa’ad-Faltas’ motions for appointment of counsel. 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.

AFFIRMED

4

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.