UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1280
MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD-FALTAS, MD, MPH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA, THE STATE OF,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
COLUMBIA, CITY OF,
Respondent.
No. 13-1287
MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD-FALTAS, MD, MPH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA, THE STATE OF,
Respondent – Appellee
and
COLUMBIA, THE CITY OF,
Respondent.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Aiken. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (1:13-cv-00036-TLW; 1:12-cv-03404-TLW)
Submitted: November 19, 2013 Decided: November 21, 2013
Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
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 and denying relief on
her petitions seeking federal habeas relief.
The district court orders Assa’ad-Faltas seeks to
appeal are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not
issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 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. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Assa’ad-Faltas has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
3
the appeals. 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
4