Opinion
20-6805 20-6939
07-13-2021
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, 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. and MARIE THERESE ASSA'AD FALTAS, Movant - Appellant, 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.
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
Submitted: June 17, 2021
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)
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.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, Marie Therese Assa'ad-Faltas see ks 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.