Marie Assa'ad-Faltas v. Richland County Sheriff's Department

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Marie Assa'ad-Faltas v. Richland County Sheriff's Department

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1067 Doc: 40 Filed: 12/19/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1067

MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD-FALTAS, MD, MPH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RICHLAND COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, RCSD, as employer of Deputy Pierce/Pearce; LEON LOTT, officially as Sheriff of Richland County (RC), South Carolina (SC) for injunctive relief; FORMER RCSD DEPUTY PIERCE/PEARCE, individually for damages; and all their subordinates and/or agents who did and/or intend to injure Plaintiff,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:18-cv-00578-MGL)

Submitted: December 15, 2022 Decided: December 19, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, Appellant Pro Se. Robert David Garfield, CROWE LAFAVE GARFIELD & BAGLEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina; Andrew Lindemann, LINDEMANN & DAVIS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1067 Doc: 40 Filed: 12/19/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas appeals the district court’s judgment entered in

Defendants’ favor in Assa’ad-Faltas’ action raising

42 U.S.C. § 1983

and state law claims,

and the court’s orders denying Assa’ad-Faltas’ postjudgment motions. We have reviewed

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

judgment and orders. See Assa’ad-Faltas v. Richland Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 3:18-cv-

00578-MGL (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2021; Jan. 13, 2022). We deny all pending motions. 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

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished