USCA4 Appeal: 23-1705 Doc: 39 Filed: 05/30/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1705

LEILA NASSER ASR, Individually and as parent of minor child DM, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PETER M. GIFTOS; NOVANT HEALTH INC.; NOVANT HEALTH EASTOVER PEDIATRICS, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Senior District Judge. (3:21-cv-00670-FDW-SCR)

Submitted: March 27, 2025 Decided: May 30, 2025

Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leila Nasser Asr, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Holcomb Epley, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Amy Petty, BATTEN MCLAMB SMITH, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1705 Doc: 39 Filed: 05/30/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: Leila Nasser Asr, individually and on behalf of her minor child DM, appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her civil complaint against Appellees Peter M. Giftos, Novant Health Inc., and Novant Health Eastover Pediatrics. Appellees have filed two motions to dismiss the appeal. Upon review of the motions, we grant in part Appellees’ second motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal to the extent Asr seeks to appeal on behalf of DM. See Myers v. Loudoun Cnty. Pub. Schs., 418 F.3d 395, 401 (4th Cir. 2005) (explaining that “non-attorney parents generally may not litigate the claims of their minor children in federal court”). We deny Appellees’ first motion to dismiss, and we deny Asr’s motion to compel verification of Appellees’ corporate disclosure statement.

To the extent Asr seeks to appeal the dismissal of her individual capacity claims and the district court’s denial of her motions relating to those claims, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We similarly find no merit to Asr’s contentions that the district court’s orders were the product of judicial bias and that the district judge should have recused himself. See, e.g., Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2011) (explaining that rulings made “on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings[,] almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders over which we retain jurisdiction.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1705 Doc: 39 Filed: 05/30/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

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 IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART