Nelson v. Department of Social Services

Fourth Circuit

Nelson v. Department of Social Services

465 F. App'x 237

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 13, 2012

DocketNo. 11-1979

StatusPublished

This text of 465 F. App'x 237 (Nelson v. Department of Social Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nelson v. Department of Social Services, 465 F. App'x 237 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[238]*238Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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 have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Nelson v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., No. 4:10-cv-03119-RBH, 2011 WL 3841084 (D.S.C. filed Aug. 25, 2011; entered Aug. 26,2011). We deny Nelson’s motion for settlement and motion for explanation as moot. 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.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[238]*238Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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 have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Nelson v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., No. 4:10-cv-03119-RBH, 2011 WL 3841084 (D.S.C. filed Aug. 25, 2011; entered Aug. 26,2011). We deny Nelson’s motion for settlement and motion for explanation as moot. 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.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

465 F. App'x 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelson-v-department-of-social-services-ca4-2012.