LEILA NASSER ASR, Individually and as parent of minor child DM v. Peter M. Giftos; Novant Health Inc.; Novant Health Eastover Pediatrics

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1705
LEILA NASSER ASR, Individually and as parent of minor child DM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PETER M. GIFTOS; NOVANT HEALTH INC.; NOVANT HEALTH EASTOVER
PEDIATRICS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Senior District Judge. (3:21-cv-00670-FDW-SCR)
Submitted: March 27, 2025 Decided: May 30, 2025
Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leila Nasser Asr, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Holcomb Epley, WOMBLE BOND
DICKINSON (US) LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Amy Petty, BATTEN
MCLAMB SMITH, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Leila Nasser Asr, individually and on behalf of her minor child DM, appeals the
district court’s orders dismissing her civil complaint against Appellees Peter M. Giftos,
Novant Health Inc., and Novant Health Eastover Pediatrics. Appellees have filed two
motions to dismiss the appeal. Upon review of the motions, we grant in part Appellees’
second motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal to the extent Asr seeks to appeal on behalf
of DM. See Myers v. Loudoun Cnty. Pub. Schs., 418 F.3d 395, 401 (4th Cir. 2005)
(explaining that “non-attorney parents generally may not litigate the claims of their minor
children in federal court”). We deny Appellees’ first motion to dismiss, and we deny Asr’s
motion to compel verification of Appellees’ corporate disclosure statement.
To the extent Asr seeks to appeal the dismissal of her individual capacity claims and
the district court’s denial of her motions relating to those claims, we have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. We similarly find no merit to Asr’s contentions that
the district court’s orders were the product of judicial bias and that the district judge should
have recused himself. See, e.g., Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2011)
(explaining that rulings made “on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the
course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings[,] almost never constitute a valid
basis for a bias or partiality motion” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s orders over which we retain jurisdiction.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 IN PART,
AFFIRMED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --