Opinion
No. 11-1979
02-13-2012
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.
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UNPUBLISHED
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) 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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 (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