Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Assa'ad Faltas v. State Newspaper, 96-2086 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-2086 Visitors: 18
Filed: Jul. 16, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2086 MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD FALTAS, MD, MPH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE STATE NEWSPAPER, in its corporate capac- ity; KATHERINE GRAY, individually and as agent of The State Newspaper; CLAUDIA SMITH BRINSON, individually and as agent of The State News- paper; PATRICK BLANCHAT, individually as agent of The State Newspaper; THOMAS N. MCLEAN, individually and as agent of The State News- paper; WILLIAM RHONE, individually
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2086 MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD FALTAS, MD, MPH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE STATE NEWSPAPER, in its corporate capac- ity; KATHERINE GRAY, individually and as agent of The State Newspaper; CLAUDIA SMITH BRINSON, individually and as agent of The State News- paper; PATRICK BLANCHAT, individually as agent of The State Newspaper; THOMAS N. MCLEAN, individually and as agent of The State News- paper; WILLIAM RHONE, individually and as agent of The State Newspaper; CHRIS RILEY; UNKNOWN NAMED DEFENDANTS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-3324-3-17) Submitted: June 30, 1998 Decided: July 16, 1998 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marie Therese Assa’ad Faltas, Appellant Pro Se. Jerry Jay Bender, BAKER, BARWICK, RAVENEL & BENDER, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina; Peter John Tepley, TURNIPSEED & ASSOCIATES, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Dr. Marie Therese Assa’ad Faltas appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to Defendants and denying her motion for reconsideration in this action alleging defamation, tortious interference with an employment contract, intentional in- fliction of emotional distress, fraud, and reckless endangerment. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Assa’ad Faltas v. State Newspaper, No. CA-95-3324-3-17 (D.S.C. July 5, 1996). We deny Appellant’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of her motion to file a supple- mental informal brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer