Marie Assa'ad-Faltas v. State of South Carolina

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6388
MARIE ASSA'AD-FALTAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; NIMRATA HALEY, as South Carolina
governor; ALAN WILSON, as South Carolina attorney general;
JEAN TOAL, as administrative head of all South Carolina's
state courts; MARK KEEL, as chief of South Carolina's State
Law Enforcement Division; KEN LANCASTER, as acting head of
South Carolina's Department of Public Safety; LEON LOTT, as
sheriff of Richland County, South Carolina and warden of the
Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center; JEANETTE MCBRIDE, as
Richland County's Clerk of Court; WILLIAM NETTLES, as US
Attorney for the District of South Carolina, CITY OF
COLUMBIA, LESLEY COGGIOLA, officially as South Carolina's
disciplinary counsel all officially and solely for
injunctive relief,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(1:11-cv-03079-TLW)
Submitted: August 22, 2012 Decided: August 24, 2012
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Marie Therese Assa'ad-Faltas, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Marie Assa’ad-Faltas seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on her self-styled 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2006) petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court
referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that
relief be denied and advised Assa’ad-Faltas that failure to
timely file specific objections to this recommendation would
waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation.
The timely filing of specific objections to a
magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve
appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when
the parties have been warned of the consequences of
noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th
Cir. 1985); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 146-48 (1985).
Assa’ad-Faltas has waived appellate review by failing to file
specific objections after receiving proper notice. United
States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007) (“We now
conclude that a party . . . waives a right to appellate review
of particular issues by failing to file timely objections
specifically directed to those issues.”). Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability, deny as moot Assa’ad-Faltas’s
motion for injunctive relief pending appeal, and dismiss the

-- 3 of 4 --

4
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 4 of 4 --