Yvonne Nelson v. Department of Social Services, No. 11-1979 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1979 YVONNE NELSON; D. N.; D. N, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, City of Conway; EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION; HORRY COUNTY SCHOOLS; HORRY COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; HORRY GEORGETOWN TECHNICAL COLLEGE; HOUSING AUTHORITIES; SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; WACCAMAW MENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT, Defendants Appellees, and MEDICAID, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:10-cv-03119-RBH) Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yvonne Nelson, D.N., D.N., Appellants Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; John Betts McCutcheon, Jr., Lisa Arlene Thomas, THOMPSON & HENRY, PA, Conway, South Carolina; Kimberly Kelley Blackburn, Kenneth Lendren Childs, Allen Dean Smith, CHILDS & HALLIGAN, Columbia, South Carolina; Christie Valerie Newman, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Yvonne Nelson and her two minor children appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting the Defendants motions to dismiss the complaint. We reversible error. have reviewed the record and find no Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Nelson v. Dep t of Soc. Servs., No. 4:10-cv-03119-RBH (D.S.C. filed Aug. 25, 2011; entered Aug. 26, 2011). We deny Nelson s motion for settlement and motion for explanation as moot. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.