UNPUBLISHED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.
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
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-00047-
TLW; 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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 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) (2012).
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) (2012). 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.
4
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, deny a certificate of
appealability, and dismiss 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
5